If cinema is an art form, then it only seems fair to embrace the bad as much as the good. I've always been a firm believer that to love movies, you have to be able to recognize that B-movies, no matter awful they are, do have some worth. Many may not agree with that idea; why waste your time watching a picture that is obviously going to be an utter disaster? It's not altogether a useless argument; there are lots of movies out there that are bad to the point we want to claw our eyeballs out. But what about the other ones? What about the movies that are so bad they're good? Can't we find the joy in sitting through something the average Joe would never pick up and see the beauty in it?At first glance, it might be a stretch to call bad movies art. But isn't art supposed to be perceived through the eye of the beholder? I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there that think Picasso's paintings are shit. As far as cinema goes, I've met a number of people who think Citizen Kane is overpraised garbage. When so many movies try way too hard to say something important or profound, it's refreshing to see one that is what it is and does not aspire to be the best movie ever made. It just asks us to accept it on its own terms. True, the filmmaker may have been aiming for a completely different response, but it all leads back to the viewer's response to it.
I believe awesomely bad movies are, without question, a form of art. I often read reviews where the critic talks about the unintentional hilarity of the picture and still give it an ultra low rating. That's where the conundrum comes in for me. If I thoroughly enjoy a bad movie to the point I'm exhilarated, should I rip it to shreds for its sheer awfulness, or do I praise it for what it has achieved? I guess there's a certain level of embarrassment in awarding a bad movie for accidental accomplishments, but in my eyes, they're accomplishments all the same. It's no different to me than when a critic praises a movie for the same reasons I loathed it.
This may feel like a lot of explanation when preparing to talk about Troll 2, of all movies, but I feel it is necessary since I'm about to defend it. There's no doubt it is a complete catastrophe in every department: the writing, directing, acting, editing, special effects, music (the uproarious opening theme song sounds like it belongs on an '80s action television show). But these are precisely the reasons why I love it. In a movie this bad, the fact every element comes off as sloppy and amateurish is what gives the experience its charm. Had Troll 2 been a well made movie, it would be distracting and I probably wouldn't enjoy it all. If I'm going to appreciate bad art, I don't want it to look good.
The fact the movie's production was so bonkers only makes my affection for it bigger. The picture, for some odd reason, has no relation to the original Troll at all. In fact, there aren't even any trolls in it! The title was added after shooting was completed, maybe in hopes it would improve video sales. The writer/director, Claudio Fragasso, is Italian and inexplicably credits himself under the pseudonym Drake Floyd. He decided to shoot the picture in Utah and hired locals to play the roles, which threw extra pressure on them since none of the crew spoke English(!). Due to the communication barrier, the script was shot verbatim and the performances were never given clear direction.
Troll 2 was obviously made for no money. There are maybe four or five locations in the whole movie (not counting the woods), and the creatures, which are goblins, were played by midgets wearing potato sacks stuffed with pillows. There's nothing frightening about them in the least; even their masks look cheaply painted. To describe the movie's mind boggling story would ruin the surprises; not in the traditional sense, of course, but in the sense that the movie's biggest laughs would be ruined. The bottom line is that Troll 2 is funnier than most comedies I have seen in the past five years. The sheer absurdity of it, combined with how deathly serious it is played, is what works mostly in its favor.
You can feel every bit of confusion the actors had trying to play their roles. One wonders if they were all hired from the local playhouse since their performances (especially in the case of the adults) are so theatrical. Everyone delivers their lines at a high volume, and their facial expressions are always nervous or borderline hysterical. It's as if Fragasso, unable to tell them what he wanted from them, had to instead act it out himself and hope they'd follow suit. The fact that everyone seems to be trying to out act each other makes it damn near impossible to pick a favorite character. It kind of feels like it'd be unfair.
Lousy writing can often make us groan and cringe with disbelief. The same would normally be applied to Troll 2 if it weren't so random. The various pieces of the story shouldn't work well together, but everyone on board is so enthusiastic about making it believable there's little reason to poke at how preposterous it is. There isn't a single moment that isn't lovingly crafted. Despite how poorly made the whole movie is, I get the feeling that the people who brought it to life felt they were part of a worthwhile project.
That last point puts Troll 2 on the same level with Ed Wood's memorable movies. He wasn't a stickler for tiny details and felt the first take was always the best, and yet he was always passionate about every movie that carried his name. It's infeasible for me to believe that Claudio Fragasso wasn't the same way, even though I haven't seen any of his other movies. Watch Troll 2 for five minutes and you'd wonder how anyone could make it and not feel 100% connected to it.
The movie has developed a huge cult following over the years, which the star, Michael Stephenson (who just turned 30), recently discovered. He was ashamed of his involvement for a long time, was amazed how many people love the movie, and decided to jump on board with them and celebrate the fact that it has such a large audience. In addition to traveling around with some of the other cast members to screen the movie and meet the fans, Stephenson has also directed and produced a documentary called Best Worst Movie, which is about Troll 2's overwhelming popularity (it's slated for release this year).
The movie is a classic trash into treasure story. No one said art had to pretty, and Troll 2 defines that phrase like no other. It's hard to give a rating to a movie like this, since it exists in a world of its own. Not a movie I could visit on a regular basis, Troll 2 is one of those rarities you have a blast watching, hold on to the fond memories of, and then go back to every couple of years or so. It's strangely liberating to sit through, because it's proof that a movie with (on the surface) no redeemable qualities whatsoever could turn out to be a masterpiece of sheer insanity. It is indeed, the Best Worst Movie I have ever seen.
Thank you for visiting Hell and Beyond!
Copyright, Hell and Beyond, 2008
2 comments:
For years, I thought I was the only one who had ever heard of this movie.I first watched it when I was five and it scared the crap of me. I forgot all about it until high school and then I made all of my friends watch it.I'm not sure if they intended for it to be that ridiculous or not but it's pure gold.
Post a Comment