"Room" Is Gross, Exploitative Goo
“Room” is its negative, with Larson in common and nothing else. More than just obvious awards bait, it’s a weepy, treacly gob of book club bullshit that gives “Forrest Gump” a run for its counterfeit money.
But at least “Forrest Gump,” for all of its empty platitudes, had a mean streak to keep things interesting. “Room” has no such wrinkle, with Irish writer Emma Donoghue adapting her own novel so awkwardly that her unease practically seeps out of the screen. Her ostensibly layered story has been stripped, lacquered, and offered up as a trophy of misguided book adaptations, appropriated by director Lenny Abrahamson (“Frank”) in the name of manufactured emotionality.
Things don’t start out so terribly.
The titular Room sees Ma (Larson), a young mother, and her 5 year-old son, Jack (Jacob Tremblay), held captive by a serial rapist. We soon learn that the man, referred to as Old Nick (Sean Bridgers), kidnapped Ma seven years prior, impregnated her, and has kept her locked inside his backyard storage shed ever since.
Larson’s performance is necessarily one of strength and warmth, with her character raising a child as normally and lovingly as possible in the most hellish of circumstances. Conversely, Jack’s life seems mostly normal to him, his worldview one of curiosity and hope and love in the face of unconscionable evil.
The first act is repetitive but warm, its core mother-son bond inherently appealing and heartbreaking.
It’s when Ma begins staging escape attempts that the screenplay short circuits, quickly imploding thanks to a number of garish directorial choices on the part of Abrahamson.
The filmmaker’s choice to shoot the big breakout scene from Jack’s point of view makes sense, given that Ma has employed Jack to get help while she stays behind. But it’s the first sign than Abrahamson’s vision for the movie is an entirely literal one and that he doesn’t know whose story he’s telling.
Emma Donoghue wrote Room explicitly from Jack’s point of view. The film version mostly belongs to Ma, grossly using Jack the same way a boss might use an inspirational poster – as a prop – without making any attempts to explore his psychology.
The picture’s nadir comes in the form of a song, though. Post-rock band This Will Destroy You’s “The Mighty Rio Grande,” used so effectively in Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball” and then less effectively in every sports television montage since. Here it’s an albatross around the neck of the film’s most important scene, painfully telegraphing the movie’s intent: to make you really, really sad. As the song’s five guitar chords reverb endlessly, as cymbals crash tastelessly, Abrahamson tries desperately to whip up the most artificial catharsis in movie history, only to mark the halfway point of his film.
The rest is a disaster of pacing and cheese and willful misery, walking us through Ma and Jack’s inevitable struggle to adjust to “normal” life. As Ma’s divorced parents fight over how to treat their newfound grandson, Jack comes to observe that everything was easier in Room. Through the fog of her depression, Ma can’t help but tacitly agree.
In an inherently unrelatable movie (few will ever experience anything as horrifying as Ma and Jack do here) the real world material manages to be even less accessible than everything that came before. Not only does the film continue to exploit the misery of two plainly damaged people for bogus life lessons that anyone not in their situation couldn’t possibly relate to, but it finds itself stuck in narrative cement. Nothing happens for the better part of an hour.
Although occasionally ripe with beautiful visuals – Room is thoughtfully designed and the movie’s final scene looks great – the set is ironically the movie’s only element that isn’t a façade.
The way Donaghue declaws her story in service of a broad feel-good-by-way-of-feeling-bad approach and a dumb, nonsensical conclusion isn’t merely annoying: it makes it crystal clear that cynicism (or even criticism) in relation to “Room” is unwelcome. In this way, it’s a genius piece of “with us or against us” filmmaking. (Distributer A24 knows this. They recently tweeted “Good litmus test: if you make it through [a particular scene in the film] with dry eyes, you are a sociopath. 99% accuracy.”)
Audiences that just want to feel something will undoubtedly be fed here. Abrahamson’s naked emotionalism isn’t hard to tap into and Larson is an inherently empathetic performer. But “Room” is lowest common denominator goop, so interested in feeling that it neglects to say or do. That its misguidedness is enacted with so much gusto makes the entire venture all the more infuriating.
-J. Olson
Rating: ★ 1/2 out of ★★★★★ (Bad)
Release Date: October 16, 2015 (Limited)
Studio: A24
Director: Lenny Abrahamsom
Screenwriters: Emma Donoghue
Starring: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Sean Bridgers, Joan Allen, William H. Macy
MPAA Rating: R (for language)
I think your statement “bogus life lessons that anyone not in their situations can relate to,” is patently wrong. In the broadest sense, the movie is about trauma, that traumas not only happen to individuals but happen to families too, showed how each member dealt with, and in the end began to heal from it. While not many can precisely relate to ma or Jack’s trauma, the broad theme of horrible things happen to us, we and our loved ones have to deal, (hopefully) grow, and move on was evident enough for me too see and feel. It seems like your resentment of feeling of being taken emotional hostage (zero pun intended) might have kept you from appreciating that.
What a ridiculous review, “inherently unrelatable”? Really?, that’s just bizarre.
What an a$$hole you are…I hope whatever ridiculous website this is gets rid of you, as you bring absolutely nothing positive or constructive to the table…Room was probably one of the best movies I’ve seen in years, but it’s premises and mainly it’s sentiment are wasted on a brain dead little troll such as yourself..Get a life
Thanks for an honest review , rather than pandering to the wine tasters.
The film is dull with a capital D.
I’ve only read 2 of your reviews and wonder about your love for the word “ostensibly”.
The first problem I had with the film was that it was trying to invoke emotional moments with swelling music, when all the director needed was to show us the escape without any influence, like the way Spielberg did in Schindler’s List.
Secondly, the rapist in the film is a one dimensional character the audience knows nothing about. To me this is a problem. A depraved rapist should not be sympathised nor confirmed without insight by the audience. Instead, the director should give insight and allow an objective view of such a character by spending some time with him/her, like in the novel The Collector.
A film has to be recognised as a representation of reality in which the audience is judging every character second by second. I will admit a one dimensional character can be used as a devise, to get the story from a to be. But in this case Old Nick needed to be viewed objectively, in an effort to achieve more than a one dimensional view. After all, not all people who rape, murder and kidnap, start life that way in lofe. The psychology and motive of this character was important, but not seen.
Third, I think there was a problem with the script: I understand that Jack is only 5 but he makes some really strange comments in the film. For example, when he heard a knock at the door Jack says, ‘Ma the door is ticking’. Are we meant to believe jack doesn’t know the sound of knocking on wood? This is not the only time this happens in the film and these blunders are not just centred around the Jack. For example, the ten minutes of overly-childish description owe hear from Jack via voice over, the strange decision to escape in a count of Monte Cristo manner, the over-acting man who saves Jack, the over-acting police officer who drives Jack to his mother, to name most.
At the same time, this film could be seen as exploitative. However it lends a great voice to a women who has been abducted and her son. I did not like the way the film was directed, the use of music, or the way in which the set design, make up and script were air brushed and perfected, but I did appreciate the attempt made by the director to tell a true story.
In my opinion the ideas were there. For example, the moment shown after Joy and Jack escape the room, in which they sre living in the outside world are seen to be just as difficult and traumatic as being trapped in a room. I thought this second half of the film was instilled great honesty and I empathised more so for the characters during the second half of the film.
I don’t think Room is a bad film, but I think it is a film with obvious flaws that should be pointed out.
Wow, J, Olson is an emotionless person numb to the inner workings of humanity. He didn’t like this movie or Forest Gump? Just wow.