Cats (2019) dir Tom Hooper
Cats (2019) is a musical adaptation by Tom Hooper of the well-known theatre show created by Andrew Lloyd-Webber of the same title. The plot follows a cast of cats in London who are attending the Jellicle Ball, which is an event Jellicle Cats compete in to have another chance at another life. We follow Victoria, a curious cat who is introduced to us as having being dumped on the streets. she leads us through the introductions of the various Jellicle cats due to compete for their second chances at life. We're also introduced to Macavity, the antagonist of the film, who is a Jellicle cat competing, however, his strategy to be granted his second-chance is to literally catnap the rest of the competitors.
There's one main question when it comes to this film, and it is simply "What happened?". I've been a fan of Tom Hooper's films since The King's Speech, and he seemed capable as anyone with how he'd brilliantly and innovatively adapted Les Miserables for the big screen. However, I think that the sorry answer to the question is that he'd bitten off more than he could chew with this one. It is my firm belief that there are some stage productions that can be taken away from the big screen, and there are some that really cannot. This adaptation shows a strong connection between story and media, and in the worst ways.
There are a few reasons that this movie wasn't all that great. Namely the unfinished special effects which let the film down in so many ways. First of all, they weren't close to finished. Cast members were strangely "designed" with what can only be described as CGI cat bodysuits where the hands and feet were forgotten about and remained entirely human. This "decision" (quotes due to the fact that this may have not been planned for the lack of time in finishing the CGI) pays homage to the costume designs for the theatre production, however it does read as unfinished and takes from the film. If Hooper made the decision to go the distance by not leaving a trace of human, he'd perhaps get away with it. One of the big issues I had with this is the fact that you can see Judy Dench is still wearing her wedding ring - mistake or do the cats in this universe really host cat wedding ceremonies? Where would a cat find a ring that small?
Leading me on to the next issue - the scaling. The human cats appeared smaller and sets bigger, although I'm not totally convinced that the filmmakers know how big a cat is. Most obviously this appears in a scene close to the beginning, where we are introduced to Rebel Wilson's cat, Jennyanydots, who is a domesticated cat who has an odd relationship with mice and cockroaches. The mice were tiny in comparison to her, and there were two matchboxes that were the staging area for a band of five whole mice. Having seen mice before, I can assure you that they are bigger than matchboxes. There were inconsistencies like this throughout the film, another instance happening in a scene where Victoria wears a ring that fits around her wrist.
The storyline overall was the very typical "beginning, middle, end". The interesting parts were handed to us when the next cat sang their song for the Jellicle ball. These micro-narratives are the most interesting parts if you can overlook the poor effects. However, the directing wasn't the best in some scenes, for the most part it looked as though Hooper had told actors and actresses to "act like cats", some knew what they were, and some did not. It could be compared to walking into a theatre improv class where students are just starting to warm up; there's the one who's a natural (Ian McKellen in this case), there's the average performers, and then there are a few more who need some more instruction.
Musically, the songs were good, although at times weren't the best quality as many of them were recorded live on set, rather than being lip-synced. This was true of Hooper's adaptation of Les Miserables, where this recording method allowed the emotions of the songs to flourish, rather than putting the focus entirely on vocal accuracy. It seemed unnecessary to lead with this a second time, as Cats isn't a particularly emotional film. The only song in the film where this decision paid off was in "Memory", which I would recommend watching the performance of. In the upbeat songs of the film, the effect of the live audio recording helped the audience pick up on the fact that not all of the actors had the greatest of voices.
Overall, Cats was hopefully just an anomaly in Tom Hooper's filmmaking career, it was far from the best film. It went on to win six awards at the Golden Raspberries, including the Worst Director and Worst Picture awards, and unfortunately it's not too difficult to see why. The only reason I'd consider watching this again would be for a good drinking night with friends (link here).
10/10 would not recommend.
There are a few reasons that this movie wasn't all that great. Namely the unfinished special effects which let the film down in so many ways. First of all, they weren't close to finished. Cast members were strangely "designed" with what can only be described as CGI cat bodysuits where the hands and feet were forgotten about and remained entirely human. This "decision" (quotes due to the fact that this may have not been planned for the lack of time in finishing the CGI) pays homage to the costume designs for the theatre production, however it does read as unfinished and takes from the film. If Hooper made the decision to go the distance by not leaving a trace of human, he'd perhaps get away with it. One of the big issues I had with this is the fact that you can see Judy Dench is still wearing her wedding ring - mistake or do the cats in this universe really host cat wedding ceremonies? Where would a cat find a ring that small?
Leading me on to the next issue - the scaling. The human cats appeared smaller and sets bigger, although I'm not totally convinced that the filmmakers know how big a cat is. Most obviously this appears in a scene close to the beginning, where we are introduced to Rebel Wilson's cat, Jennyanydots, who is a domesticated cat who has an odd relationship with mice and cockroaches. The mice were tiny in comparison to her, and there were two matchboxes that were the staging area for a band of five whole mice. Having seen mice before, I can assure you that they are bigger than matchboxes. There were inconsistencies like this throughout the film, another instance happening in a scene where Victoria wears a ring that fits around her wrist.
The storyline overall was the very typical "beginning, middle, end". The interesting parts were handed to us when the next cat sang their song for the Jellicle ball. These micro-narratives are the most interesting parts if you can overlook the poor effects. However, the directing wasn't the best in some scenes, for the most part it looked as though Hooper had told actors and actresses to "act like cats", some knew what they were, and some did not. It could be compared to walking into a theatre improv class where students are just starting to warm up; there's the one who's a natural (Ian McKellen in this case), there's the average performers, and then there are a few more who need some more instruction.
Musically, the songs were good, although at times weren't the best quality as many of them were recorded live on set, rather than being lip-synced. This was true of Hooper's adaptation of Les Miserables, where this recording method allowed the emotions of the songs to flourish, rather than putting the focus entirely on vocal accuracy. It seemed unnecessary to lead with this a second time, as Cats isn't a particularly emotional film. The only song in the film where this decision paid off was in "Memory", which I would recommend watching the performance of. In the upbeat songs of the film, the effect of the live audio recording helped the audience pick up on the fact that not all of the actors had the greatest of voices.
Overall, Cats was hopefully just an anomaly in Tom Hooper's filmmaking career, it was far from the best film. It went on to win six awards at the Golden Raspberries, including the Worst Director and Worst Picture awards, and unfortunately it's not too difficult to see why. The only reason I'd consider watching this again would be for a good drinking night with friends (link here).
10/10 would not recommend.
Comments
Post a Comment