Skip to main content

Wiseau and Sestero Put Their Friendship to the Test


Tommy Wiseau’s really been riding a high since The Disaster Artist. Even though that film doesn’t portray him in an entirely positive light, there’s been renewed interest in him. And so it’s perfect timing that he happens to be headlining a new movie -a small budget Indie movie, but still a movie. Best F(r)iends is his first movie of note since his infamous 2003 cult classic The Room, and it reunites him with Greg Sestero, who wrote and produced the film (with Justin MacGregor directing). And if this movie does indeed work, it wouldn’t at all without Sestero.
Jon (Greg Sestero) is a homeless drifter in Los Angeles who happens upon a mortician called Harvey (Tommy Wiseau) who specializes in making masks for disfigured bodies. He manages to get a job as a janitor for the bizarre character and they soon become friends. However when Jon enters into a sketchy business enterprise, it has a potentially devastating impact on their relationship.
Best F(r)iends is an art film. If the title didn’t tell you that, the production values certainly do. It was made very much on the cheap, with few sets and no known actors outside of the cult status of its two leads (and Paul Scheer of all people). The movie also has a few abstract touches in its editing and framing, as well as some vague story elements. The story seems a little hackneyed on the surface and the script is definitely in need of another rewrite. However it is fascinating. Those familiar with The Disaster Artist, either the movie or book, will recognize parallels in this film to Wiseau and Sestero’s early relationship. Harvey has an unusual passion that others find off-putting, at one point Jon’s dating life gets in the way of the work he’s committed to do for Harvey, etc. They’re not overt references though (aside from a couple easter eggs, such as a scene where they juts toss a ball back and forth to each other as they talk). In fact it’s kind of clever Sestero has managed to make a distorted mirror variation of his own book. But one where he’s allowed to take some extreme liberties. Because this movie does go in some weird directions -it’s certainly unpredictable. And not all of them work. Sometimes you can feel the movie biting off more than it can chew. What mostly saves it is the fact that, unlike in The Room, all the strange choices are intentional, and the filmmakers self-aware.
And that brings me to Wiseau, who funny enough, does work in the movie. He’s still bad of course -I don’t think he’s capable of giving a good performance. But him not calling the shots makes all the difference. Sestero and MacGregor are able to use Wiseau’s unique eccentricity to the advantage of the movie, largely by writing it into the story. Apart from Jon, most characters are taken aback by his odd behaviour and manner of speaking. And the tone of the movie suits him better as well. Stuff he does that’s unsettling is conveyed as unsettling, unlike in The Room where it was played off as whimsical. His acting instructors were right in that he could potentially make a good villain, or at least a disturbing anti-hero. Wiseau’s not believable in his acting, but his personality’s at least believable in this story. Sestero is also a better actor than The Room would lead you to believe. He’s not great, but he’s at least decent in this movie. Though you don’t connect much with his character, which I think is by design. But it’s not really a mark in the films’ favour, as you’re not much invested in Jon as a person. The only other character of note is Jon’s girlfriend Traci played by a generally unconvincing Kristen Stephenson Pino.
However the movie’s problems don’t phase me a lot, largely due to its other major influence: film noir. It borrows quite a few story tropes, and techniques from the genre (as well as melodrama and even Shakespeare near the end). Jon’s character especially reminds me of any number of film noir protagonists with troubled pasts. And much like Detour, though its ostensibly not good, it has an unadulterated bare-bones appeal and a zealous, if possibly misplaced, ambition.
Something that should be known by audiences before seeing Best F(r)iends is that it’s a “Volume One”. There is a second movie coming. But rather than being a sequel for no reason, the impression is given more that this is one movie in two parts, like Christine Edzard’s Little Dorrit. Ultimately it’s not going to be as good, but it will be fascinating. Perhaps I can consolidate a more complete opinion after I see Volume Two.
I certainly am curious to see Volume Two.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more