What's a Jellicle Cat? One Avid CATS Fan's Candid Look at CATS: The Movie
WARNING: This review will contain spoilers for CATS the movie. If you have yet to see it, read ahead at your own risk.
Good evening people of the internet, Jellicles and non-Jellicles alike! So, last night, I saw the CATS movie, and as most people on the internet do, I have OPINIONS. You will probably read a lot of reviews of this movie over the next few weeks, but what might make my OPINIONS stand out from other people’s OPINIONS is that I am probably one of the biggest, most dedicated CATS fans you’ll ever encounter.
I grew up with CATS. I think a lot of us did. Watching the VHS, seeing the tour when it came through town, watching the VHS some more… And then when the show was revived on Broadway, I fell in love with it all over again. So much, in fact, that I saw it upwards of 80 times over the 18 months it ran at the Neil Simon theatre. I got to know the cast, I made cosplays, and I met some of my best friends and my partner through the show. It’s a big part of my life — always has been, always will be.
I really wanted to like the movie, if only to spite the avid CATS-haters whose skepticism of the show would only be intensified after seeing what the first trailer suggested would be a terrifying monstrosity. I went in with high hopes but low expectations, hoping to be pleasantly surprised by what I saw. But let’s start from the beginning.
The plot of CATS is simple, really. A tribe of cats, Jellicle cats, meet once a year at the Jellicle Ball to sing, dance, and celebrate life. At the end of the night, their leader Old Deuteronomy chooses the most worthy cat to venture to the Heaviside Layer (basically cat heaven) and be reborn into a new life. It’s a show that on stage is told entirely through song and dance — and it works, in its subtle way. But the movie, through heavy-handed and repetitive dialogue, hits you over the head with a story that has no business being over-complicated. The main complaint I hear about the stage show is that it has “no plot”, and while that couldn’t be farther from the truth, the movie does succeed in making it so no one will ever be able to utter those words again. Whether there’s a point to it all — well, that’s a different question.
One change to the plot that I did think worked exceptionally well was the decision to frame it from the point of view of the kitten Victoria. She was given a backstory, and we are introduced to the world of the Jellicles through her eyes. Francesca Hayward did a beautiful job in the role, both as a dancer and a singer. Some of the film’s other stars also pleasantly surprised me, including James Corden who was a fun and quirky Bustopher Jones, Robbie Fairchild guiding the story as Munkustrap, and Ian McKellen who was an incredibly sincere and nuanced Gus. Judi Dench wowed me as Old Deuteronomy, even though I missed the original baritone. Jason Derulo’s Rum Tum Tugger was also spot on, but I was disappointed in how little we saw of him through the rest of the movie. Jennifer Hudson was a fine Grizabella but her arc was overshadowed by Victoria being at the story’s center, and her rendition of “Memory” was ironically unmemorable. Idris Elba was a chilling Macavity, although his success was mostly due to being introduced early on with his own evil scheme unfolding in secret alongside the Jellicle Ball. In my opinion, this was a strong choice for the purpose of storytelling, and I was surprisingly convinced by his motivation to be chosen for rebirth. The same can’t be said for Taylor Swift’s Bombalurina, whose character was reduced to a sultry hench-woman of the “Napoleon of Crime”. This is through no fault of Swift, who I thought did a fine job with both the role and with the original song “Beautiful Ghosts” she wrote for Victoria to sing. It’s a charming little song that fits into the story much better than I expected. Still, I was extremely disappointed at how little screen time Bombalurina had, only appearing in that scene and therefore never having the chance to sing “Grizabella the Glamour Cat” or develop a full arc revolving around Macavity.
This is something I noticed a lot — character arcs that were subtle but specific before are now non-existent. CATS on stage succeeds in the difficult task of creating memorable characters who are highlighted once at best in a single song and dance number. What works about the musical is that they fill in the ensemble even when their five minutes of fame have passed. Out of the limelight, they blend into the chorus, only to suddenly remind the audience that they’re still around with a spin or a flip or an unblinking stare into the crowd. The cats of the movie are unmemorable, unlikeable, sometimes downright annoying — and those are just the ones with names! The rest of the Jellicle tribe only seem to exist to fill in the background, with CGI’d costumes that all look the same, vaguely terrifying facial features, and no way of distinguishing them by personality, solo lines sung, or actor playing them. Demeter, another cat with a prominent and important role in the musical, was demoted to a background character that I couldn’t identify if my life depended on it.
Demeter and Bombalurina aren’t the only characters to be snubbed of a meaningful personality. Jennyanydots, played by Rebel Wilson, became an overdramatic caricature of the lovable, motherly, if a little quirky, tap-dancing cat. Which, by the way, is not part of Wilson’s role. Since she doesn’t tap, that moment was given to Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat in the second half of the movie. His number, even with that new addition, was one of the ones I thought worked extremely well (he’s my favorite cat, so my expectations were quite high). Bringing the tribe to the actual railroad station to dance along the tracks and on the train with him was one of the best uses of the stage-to-screen translation.
Unfortunately, another act 2 star was not as lucky. The Magical Mr. Mistoffelees (and no I didn’t have to look up how to spell that) has a song that is nothing short of a joyful celebration in the musical. The unassuming chorus cat comes to the forefront in a sparkling, glittering, spectacular magic show that culminates in the rescue of Old Deuteronomy from Macavity’s clutches and a dance party with the audience clapping and singing along. Unfortunately, the movie absolutely butchered his character. He spent the whole time bumbling around, failing at the simplest of card tricks, and awkwardly pursuing Victoria. His song was the opposite of joyful and his victory not in the least triumphant. If he hadn’t been such a prominent character in the movie, I might not have minded, but since nearly every scene had him being a disaster in some form or another he quickly became unbearable.
In defense of Mr. Mistoffelees though, pretty much all of the cats were the opposite of graceful. Cats were tripping on things, falling over, and otherwise not acting very… cat-like. The reason that CATS works so well as a dance show is because Gillian Lynne’s original choreography was styled to mimic a cat’s movement - grace, poise, refinement. Andy Blankenbuehler's updated choreography for the revival lacked some of those feline qualities, but overall, it still looked like CATS. So why did that not translate to the screen? He was brought on to choreograph that as well, and brought two dancers from broadway with him. So… where was the dancing? It was heavily modified, minimized, and modernized to an unbearable point. On stage, the cats are constantly dancing. But I suppose that’s what happens when you try to take a dance show and make it into a book-musical-movie.
I knew going in that in comparison to the stage show, the movie would always fall flat. But CATS doesn’t hold up as an original work or an adaptation. I’ve always believed that when adapting a story, there has to be a reason to use the chosen medium. CATS the musical worked as an adaptation of T.S. Eliot’s poems because the text was beautiful when set to music, and the best way to translate the movement of the animal was through dance. Which is why CATS is a dance show, and the narrative is a loose storytelling device to frame it. But there was no reason to make it into a movie if the dance isn’t highlighted. My biggest grievance with the movie besides the CGI (which let’s face it, we all knew was going to be bad so there’s no point in mentioning it more) is that it was so clear that the creators didn’t get it. The heart and soul of CATS is in the dance and in the characters, both of which I felt took a backseat to the over-specific plot. In creating what must have been intended to be a concrete and followable story, it actually became streamlined to the point that individual character arcs were left out. What remains is a sad shell of what makes the original CATS so magical. It felt heavy and gloomy, and while it was a fun night at the movies, it left much to be desired. My heart ached for these “dear little cats” that I love so much whose story deserves to be a celebration of a life well lived - not a funeral.
Good evening people of the internet, Jellicles and non-Jellicles alike! So, last night, I saw the CATS movie, and as most people on the internet do, I have OPINIONS. You will probably read a lot of reviews of this movie over the next few weeks, but what might make my OPINIONS stand out from other people’s OPINIONS is that I am probably one of the biggest, most dedicated CATS fans you’ll ever encounter.
I grew up with CATS. I think a lot of us did. Watching the VHS, seeing the tour when it came through town, watching the VHS some more… And then when the show was revived on Broadway, I fell in love with it all over again. So much, in fact, that I saw it upwards of 80 times over the 18 months it ran at the Neil Simon theatre. I got to know the cast, I made cosplays, and I met some of my best friends and my partner through the show. It’s a big part of my life — always has been, always will be.
I really wanted to like the movie, if only to spite the avid CATS-haters whose skepticism of the show would only be intensified after seeing what the first trailer suggested would be a terrifying monstrosity. I went in with high hopes but low expectations, hoping to be pleasantly surprised by what I saw. But let’s start from the beginning.
The plot of CATS is simple, really. A tribe of cats, Jellicle cats, meet once a year at the Jellicle Ball to sing, dance, and celebrate life. At the end of the night, their leader Old Deuteronomy chooses the most worthy cat to venture to the Heaviside Layer (basically cat heaven) and be reborn into a new life. It’s a show that on stage is told entirely through song and dance — and it works, in its subtle way. But the movie, through heavy-handed and repetitive dialogue, hits you over the head with a story that has no business being over-complicated. The main complaint I hear about the stage show is that it has “no plot”, and while that couldn’t be farther from the truth, the movie does succeed in making it so no one will ever be able to utter those words again. Whether there’s a point to it all — well, that’s a different question.
One change to the plot that I did think worked exceptionally well was the decision to frame it from the point of view of the kitten Victoria. She was given a backstory, and we are introduced to the world of the Jellicles through her eyes. Francesca Hayward did a beautiful job in the role, both as a dancer and a singer. Some of the film’s other stars also pleasantly surprised me, including James Corden who was a fun and quirky Bustopher Jones, Robbie Fairchild guiding the story as Munkustrap, and Ian McKellen who was an incredibly sincere and nuanced Gus. Judi Dench wowed me as Old Deuteronomy, even though I missed the original baritone. Jason Derulo’s Rum Tum Tugger was also spot on, but I was disappointed in how little we saw of him through the rest of the movie. Jennifer Hudson was a fine Grizabella but her arc was overshadowed by Victoria being at the story’s center, and her rendition of “Memory” was ironically unmemorable. Idris Elba was a chilling Macavity, although his success was mostly due to being introduced early on with his own evil scheme unfolding in secret alongside the Jellicle Ball. In my opinion, this was a strong choice for the purpose of storytelling, and I was surprisingly convinced by his motivation to be chosen for rebirth. The same can’t be said for Taylor Swift’s Bombalurina, whose character was reduced to a sultry hench-woman of the “Napoleon of Crime”. This is through no fault of Swift, who I thought did a fine job with both the role and with the original song “Beautiful Ghosts” she wrote for Victoria to sing. It’s a charming little song that fits into the story much better than I expected. Still, I was extremely disappointed at how little screen time Bombalurina had, only appearing in that scene and therefore never having the chance to sing “Grizabella the Glamour Cat” or develop a full arc revolving around Macavity.
This is something I noticed a lot — character arcs that were subtle but specific before are now non-existent. CATS on stage succeeds in the difficult task of creating memorable characters who are highlighted once at best in a single song and dance number. What works about the musical is that they fill in the ensemble even when their five minutes of fame have passed. Out of the limelight, they blend into the chorus, only to suddenly remind the audience that they’re still around with a spin or a flip or an unblinking stare into the crowd. The cats of the movie are unmemorable, unlikeable, sometimes downright annoying — and those are just the ones with names! The rest of the Jellicle tribe only seem to exist to fill in the background, with CGI’d costumes that all look the same, vaguely terrifying facial features, and no way of distinguishing them by personality, solo lines sung, or actor playing them. Demeter, another cat with a prominent and important role in the musical, was demoted to a background character that I couldn’t identify if my life depended on it.
Demeter and Bombalurina aren’t the only characters to be snubbed of a meaningful personality. Jennyanydots, played by Rebel Wilson, became an overdramatic caricature of the lovable, motherly, if a little quirky, tap-dancing cat. Which, by the way, is not part of Wilson’s role. Since she doesn’t tap, that moment was given to Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat in the second half of the movie. His number, even with that new addition, was one of the ones I thought worked extremely well (he’s my favorite cat, so my expectations were quite high). Bringing the tribe to the actual railroad station to dance along the tracks and on the train with him was one of the best uses of the stage-to-screen translation.
Unfortunately, another act 2 star was not as lucky. The Magical Mr. Mistoffelees (and no I didn’t have to look up how to spell that) has a song that is nothing short of a joyful celebration in the musical. The unassuming chorus cat comes to the forefront in a sparkling, glittering, spectacular magic show that culminates in the rescue of Old Deuteronomy from Macavity’s clutches and a dance party with the audience clapping and singing along. Unfortunately, the movie absolutely butchered his character. He spent the whole time bumbling around, failing at the simplest of card tricks, and awkwardly pursuing Victoria. His song was the opposite of joyful and his victory not in the least triumphant. If he hadn’t been such a prominent character in the movie, I might not have minded, but since nearly every scene had him being a disaster in some form or another he quickly became unbearable.
In defense of Mr. Mistoffelees though, pretty much all of the cats were the opposite of graceful. Cats were tripping on things, falling over, and otherwise not acting very… cat-like. The reason that CATS works so well as a dance show is because Gillian Lynne’s original choreography was styled to mimic a cat’s movement - grace, poise, refinement. Andy Blankenbuehler's updated choreography for the revival lacked some of those feline qualities, but overall, it still looked like CATS. So why did that not translate to the screen? He was brought on to choreograph that as well, and brought two dancers from broadway with him. So… where was the dancing? It was heavily modified, minimized, and modernized to an unbearable point. On stage, the cats are constantly dancing. But I suppose that’s what happens when you try to take a dance show and make it into a book-musical-movie.
I knew going in that in comparison to the stage show, the movie would always fall flat. But CATS doesn’t hold up as an original work or an adaptation. I’ve always believed that when adapting a story, there has to be a reason to use the chosen medium. CATS the musical worked as an adaptation of T.S. Eliot’s poems because the text was beautiful when set to music, and the best way to translate the movement of the animal was through dance. Which is why CATS is a dance show, and the narrative is a loose storytelling device to frame it. But there was no reason to make it into a movie if the dance isn’t highlighted. My biggest grievance with the movie besides the CGI (which let’s face it, we all knew was going to be bad so there’s no point in mentioning it more) is that it was so clear that the creators didn’t get it. The heart and soul of CATS is in the dance and in the characters, both of which I felt took a backseat to the over-specific plot. In creating what must have been intended to be a concrete and followable story, it actually became streamlined to the point that individual character arcs were left out. What remains is a sad shell of what makes the original CATS so magical. It felt heavy and gloomy, and while it was a fun night at the movies, it left much to be desired. My heart ached for these “dear little cats” that I love so much whose story deserves to be a celebration of a life well lived - not a funeral.
Comments
Post a Comment