By Breanne Brennan I suspect many of you CATS virgins out there may have a lot of burning questions: Why a movie-version? Why can’t I reconcile the blending of human and cat bodies? Why do the female cats have boobs? What the flying fuck is a “Jellicle?!” I might not be able to answer all of these questions, but my main focus here is not taking the easy, fashionable jab at the film just because everyone else is doing it, but instead to break down the successes of its translation from stage to screen. Let’s start with the main culprit here, Tom Hooper, whose directing choices can either be hit (JOHN ADAMS) or miss (LES MISERABLES). After his near-bastardization of the latter, I was reluctant to trust him with another beloved musical. I’m sure many of you would say that trust was broken with CATS, but I respectfully disagree (somewhat). CATS was never a musical begging for a film version. It’s relatively plotless—a series of vignettes if you will. Steven Spielberg (serving as a producer here) originally planned on adapting this musical into a movie in the 90s as an animated feature, which probably would’ve been a more palatable medium. However, I understand the desire to go the feline-human-CG-live-action route, since it pays homage to the stage version’s cat-leotarded human dancers. There was definitely a choice to be made with the titular characters’ aesthetic here--and made one Hooper did. Was it a good or bad choice? I’ll leave it to the viewer to make that choice, as much of it comes down to your tolerance of questionable CGI, as well as the fact that CATS is just a bizarro show to begin with. I will say that despite how flawed the film is, my faith was slightly restored when I realized this time around Hooper decided to form relationships with characters and environments in the musical numbers—rather than have us stuck in perpetual close-ups for every song. Breaking up songs by moving your characters through their respective environments is integral to a successful movie musical, in my opinion at least. Just take a look at any animated Disney movie song-break or some of the large-scale musicals from the 60s (THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OLIVER, WEST SIDE STORY…) as examples. This happens to be one area where the movie succeeds. In its opening numbers, we are danced through neon-soaked London streets with some nifty built-to-scale set pieces of houses, garbage cans, and a rundown theatre to name a few. The physical sets are quite stellar. There are also some well-executed numbers here. What solidified the original stage production’s success was the combination dance/instrumental number, “Jellicle Ball.” Andy Blankenbuehler’s choreography along with Christopher Ross’ slick cinematography are both able to let loose and make it the highlight of the film. “Skimbleshanks” is also nicely done, breaking away from the theatre set and jumping between different railway locations with ease. Jennifer Hudson also brings much-needed emotion to the film with her passionate rendition of “Memory.” At these points, I felt I could throw my annoyances away like Rebel Wilson discarding her, um…unzippable cat skin-fur(?). So, while the masses regard this film as a disaster, I am taking the unpopular stand of defending its good aspects and saying that I legitimately enjoyed it...consider it an extremely guilty pleasure. I look forward to the inevitable cult-status time will bring to the film and the raucous midnight showings that will presumably ensue.
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|