Skip to main content

A deariccle cat.

Cats
(2019)

(SPOILERS) But not a cute iccle one. There are plenty of allegedly terrible movies whose consensus status I have no strong wish to verify. Nor do I have a particularly yen for the musical oeuvre of Andrew Lloyd Webber. And even less of one for the very existence of portly putz James Corden, let alone witnessing him smugging his way across the screen. But some car crashes just need to be witnessed first-hand, so the horror acts as a warning to any who’d drive without due care and attention in future. I’d seen the trailers for Cats, so I was fully aware of the aberrant design. I had also been warned there’s pretty much no plot – but hey, it’s a musical. And I knew Tom Hooper was “directing”, so I was prepared for an aesthetically ghastly mess of grotesque cat people and incoherent visuals and faintly dull with it. So if there’s any surprise to report, it’s that I didn’t entirely hate it.

Which is to say, Cats is not a good movie. And it’s not a good movie musical. While I’m not the genre’s greatest champion, I do know that one needs to be sympathetic to the challenges of choreography, framing and editing to get the most from putting the form on screen. Tom Hooper probably had some great choreographers on hand, but his random approach to shot choices and cutting renders much of the good work null and void. He’s a guy who favours hand-held medium shots and composing – if you can call it that – a scene or sequence in the editing room, so quite why his insensitivity keeps returning to musicals – his last was Les Misérables – is a real poser. Perhaps he really hated Cats and wanted to arch his back and hiss at Lloyd Webber (Andrew certainly didn’t like the movie). Cats is also, even aside from the costumes/prosthetics/virtual prosthetics, quite an ugly movie. It’s difficult to tell how much of that is cinematographer Christopher Ross and how much is the diffuse CGI sheen spreading over the image like gangrene.

And yet, I found there was something rather mesmerising about the whole bizarre spectacle. Even as I was unable to appreciate the effort involved in the dancing – well, maybe occasionally, when someone was central to the frame and the shot was wide enough – and conscious that the songs lacked anything in the way of sparkle (obviously, Memory is the exception, an anthem for the ages, which is probably about the length of time before it needs to be heard again). And most of the known performers acquit themselves wretchedly: Judi Dench and Ian McKellen don’t even try to sing, which is to their credit; Jennifer Hudson and Taylor Swift offer lung power but little else; Idris Elba is hilariously embarrassing, and is increasingly confirming something I’ve suspected for some time – that he’s actually a bit shit, and The Wire was some kind of aberration; Ray Winstone… Gawd ’elp us. Ray Winstone. Well, to be fair to Ray, it isn’t like he could go anywhere but down; Rebel Wilson and Corden provide “laughs”.

But still. This really is the stuff of cult movies, because the artistic sensibility overseeing the whole is so impaired, so utterly without appreciation of what works and what doesn’t, that the resulting mess ricochets between baffling choices and ones so wrong headed they could be mistaken for inspired. Oversized cutlery and visible green screen. Much has been written about the cat costumes/effects to realise them and they are kind of nightmarish. While these feline humans are conspicuously absent any genitalia or that feline favourite, the butthole (I mean to say, it’s inconceivable that you’d have a production focussing on cats and so conspicuously avoid it), the sheer “naked fur” cat outfits bring a host of concomitant concerns. There are occasions when you’re fully expecting the piece to break down into some kind of orgiastic cat Caligula. The sight of Rebel Wilson lounging expansively on her cushion is the full-on “furry” experience I just did not need.

It may be the death of a potential movie career, but Francesca Hayward’s fine in the lead role, and the only performer – except maybe for Swift, probably for contractual reasons in her case – for whom the makeup does not become aesthetically unpleasant (which makes it the more surprising that none of the other cats attempt to sniff her bottom). With other felines, it was a case of puzzling over why unknown performers ended up resembling known ones when dressed as cats. So there was Christoph Waltz (actually Robbie Fairchild as Munkustrap). And there was Robert Pattison (Laurie Davidson as Mr Mistoffelees).

I expected the biggest issue with Cats – beyond Hooper, and beyond the cats – would be the lack of any momentum. Even by musical standards, it’s something of an anomaly, eschewing anything but the most basic structure in favour, essentially, of a rollcall of songs about the featured felines (as an audition to go to cat heaven and be reborn). Some got on my tits, usually because they were performed by tits (Corden, Elba, Wilson). Mostly though I was transfixed with a strange, horrified awe at what was unfolding before me.

Webber was offering a tribute, if you can call it that, to the work of TS Elliott, with most of songs deriving from his poetry and cat-world concepts (ideally, then, this ought to have been an animation – failing the Jim Cameron “live-action” version – but I suspect the chief objection was the dance side, fairly unproven as a draw in that medium outside of Fantasia). Somehow, that didn’t happen. It’s true that I was stuck attempting to work out whether Macavity (Elba) had magical powers and if so how extensive they were (he spirits other cats away), and whether the Heaviside Layer was intended as a big scam or delusion on the part of Old Deuteronomy (Dench) and so suggesting some kind of pro-atheist, anti-religious position. Mostly on the grounds that the winning cat appears to be sent heavenwards in a balloon where it will quite clearly expire. At least, logically. But then I got wondering about the Heaviside Layer itself, and was most surprised to learn it wasn’t merely some mangled cat-speak version of Nadsat.

Oliver Heaviside was a unitarian who mocked faith in a supreme being and “advanced the idea that the Earth’s uppermost atmosphere contained… the ionosphere”. From this, he proposed that a conducting layer allowed radio waves to follow the Earth’s curvature instead of travelling into space. The Kennelly -Heaviside Layer is named after him (well, partly). It’s interesting that this, the nigh-uppermost part of our immediate realm, in terms of traditional science, but also the reach of our dome in terms of alternative proposals, should form the basis for Eliot’s cat heaven.

Eliot’s conception appeared in material sent to Lloyd Webber by Eliot’s widow, but it’s also referenced in his 1939 play The Family Reunion. As to Eliot’s beliefs, while he was, to outward appearances, of traditional Christian faith, hisesoteric, more private spirituality, expressed through his poetry in which Eliot incorporates multiple beliefs into one new whole”. Whether his perception extended to cosmological speculation is uncertain, but it seems Cats’ rebirth cycle was one added by Trevor Nunn, riffing on nine lives. The reaching of heaven through ascending to the heavens is very Tower of Babel-ish, but in this context – since we haven’t been told it’s a sham – it does appear to be a viable option for cats. Lest you were in doubt, thoughThe Heaviside layer is not heaven or the afterlife for fictional musical cats but rather a part of the Earth’s atmosphere which can be used to bounce radio waves”. I’m glad that’s cleared that up.

Heaviside was into granite furniture, so I figure he’d have been a much more engaging celebrity personality than Brian bleedin’ Cox. He probably wouldn’t have held back either about the quality of Cats. Eliot, even given his religious restraint, might have had cause to curse. The Razzies awarded it Worst Picture, which surely means it can’t be all bad. Cats is a grand folly, but as is usually the case in the best – or worst – of these, it’s a fascinating one.



Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was