Cat People

Last updated on: December 29, 2019 at 2:52 pm by Eve Tushnet

Cat People 2019-12-29T14:52:02-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“I don’t say that the bird is ‘good’ or the bat is ‘bad.’ But I will say this: At least the bird is less nude.”

–Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

After I saw the new Cats movie, my companion and I had sharply divergent assessments of what was wrong with it. I thought it gave a clinic, by negative example, on why the musical worked; my companion thought it exposed the ways the musical (and, in her opinion, Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats) was always a completely bats and whackadoo idea. Perhaps we’re both right!

I wanted Cats to be good. I would actually have preferred that to “so bad it’s good.” I harbored a secret judgmental suspicion that people hated Cats because movie audiences today enjoy feeling superior to the movie. They don’t want to be overwhelmed. I enjoy MST3K as much as the next nerdy jackass, but MST3K is no way to go through life–or films. So I thought, you know, what if they just can’t hang? What if this is a bats whackadoo movie that completely commits to its bats whackadoo premise, and rolls all over it in glory, and critics and audiences are just holding back out of an addiction to self-protective irony? What if Cats‘s problem is that critics were desperate to be better than it?

I’m not better than any person; I am, in fact, worse. But I might be slightly better than Cats.

Cats absolutely does commit to every choice it made. I would like to respect it for that, but the choices were bad.

There are basically two problems here. First of all, the cats have metaphysics and a plot. This is almost all from the musical itself and well confirms my companion’s point. Nobody remembers this–I had to check Wikipedia–but the musical is not in fact just songs. I regret to report that it has a story. Eliot’s poetry hasn’t got a plot, I’m like 99% sure. It’s pure whimsy. Andrew Webber, the scourge of the skating world, used a couple unpublished fragments or unrelated poems to weave together a story in which an aged cat must choose one cat each year to go to the Heaviside Layer (apparently a real astronomical thing, but also here the “Heaven-side Lair” of cat religion) and be reborn into a new life. Thus the songs about each individual cat are their entries in a kind of Eurovision of the soul. Macavity, the villain, tries to disrupt the proceedings by catnapping participants so he can be the victor and be reborn. Instead the… divine cat-judge, Old Deuteronomy, picks Grizabella, once “the Glamour Cat” but now a battered and rejected stray, and she ascends to her new life in a cloud of glory (or on an old tire, in the original, junkyard-set musical).

It’s possible that if you just don’t pay any attention to this plotline at all the movie will work better for you. The songs are perfectly serviceable and quite catchy musical-theater type stuff, and they’re acted out here with (mostly) unimaginative fidelity to the source, which is fine. But now and then the movie wants you to attend to its plot, and these moments are either distracting (Macavity is such a perfunctory villain!) or gross (“Memory”).

I love “Memory.” Okay? I love it. Of course it is kitsch. And it’s always fine to reject kitsch. But if you don’t love any kitsch, are you still a mammal?

But this Cats film highlights the problems inherent in “Memory.” Jennifer Hudson, committing to the material with every fiber of her being (they all do), delivers it with a face wracked by sobs. Her purpose is to evoke only pity. It’s entirely possible that my own memory is rose-colored, here, but my impression of the musical when I saw it was that Grizabella also evokes awe. She knows that she once touched sublimity, and some of that sublimity hangs around her still. This movie’s Grizabella doesn’t seem to know that she’s still touched by fire, and so her songs and scenes have a more groveling air; the final choice of Old Deuteronomy (Judi Dench) seems like Lady Bountiful bestowing a gift because of her personal superior magnanimity rather than a recognition of and bowing before Grizabella’s greatness.

“Memory” is also followed by two other songs, both of which are bad in a way that undercuts the heartfelt and touching kitsch of the musical’s breakout number. “The Meaning of Happiness” is just weird and pointless, a jumble of abstract nouns given no interesting inflection by Dench’s performance. ETA: WHOA it’s from The Four Quartets! MAYBE IT WORKS IN CONTEXT. Man, I loathed it here. Like a parody of inspirational self-help crossed with a parody of impenetrable theology. Anyway! “Beautiful Ghosts,” by Taylor Swift and new for this movie, is actively obnoxious. I’ve ranted before about the contemporary musical trend of just saying whatever emotions the characters feel, but singing!!, as if that’s art. (You know what new musical doesn’t do this? Hamilton. You know what people liked???) Bland, didactic, not trusting the audience with unexpected imagery or contradictory emotional valences–it’s so fully of our own time that it stands out like a human thumb on a badly-CGI’d cat paw.

SPEAKING OF WHICH. The other problem is the one which has led reviewers to use phrases like “existential dread” and “Congratulations to dogs.” This is the furry element. And this is where I am right, and the musical figured out how to do its whackadoo thing whereas the movie did not.

The musical’s cats are designed to look… glittery, punk-pastiche, all feathery fur and dandelion-clock hair. Don’t think of a real cat. Take the idea of a cat and throw it as hard as you can against the back of your mind, and also it’s 1981, and that’s the cats in Cats. They’re theatrical: stylized, OTT, playing to the gods, the costume and makeup equivalent of belting it out. They put you in a kaleidoscope mood and when you leave the theater the outside world seems somehow still permeable by that weird glam theatricality.

Cats the film disaster goes in the opposite direction, aiming for a seamless blend of real cat and human actor. Aspects of this are fun (I loved the ears!) but this was never a wise choice. Human-cats eat human-cockroaches. Cats undress, and suddenly you realize that there are cats around you all the time, naked. Movies allow an immediacy, an intimacy, and an illusion of everyday reality which the theater can’t provide. The thing is that I did not want to be immediate and intimate with the everyday reality of naked person-cats. This movie will make you feel like normal real cats violate the indecency laws.

Photo of T. Eliot having just watched “Cats” via Wikipedia.

Art

cats

Previous Post

December 18, 2019

In Sheep's Clothing: Three quick movie reviews

Next Post

December 31, 2019 Not Valuable But Please Save: 2019 best-of

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Proverbs say about "a soft answer"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It brings rain It makes a fool wise It turns away wrath It brings riches