By Lisa Carroll
My 19-year-old daughter, the full-heir of my theaterness, went to see “Cats” last week with some friends. Her first question was, “Oh my god, Mom! What the heck was Andrew Lloyd Webber on?” The account of what she witnessed on the screen was filled with deep-rooted laughter and disbelief. She was entertained, but she hated it. Basic review: the story was weird, the actors looked ridiculous, and the CGI was terrible.
“Cats” premiered on Broadway in 1981. I was 12 years old. It ran until September 2000, one month before my daughter was born. She did not grow up in a world where “Cats” was a thing. She has never seen it. The only song she knows from the show is “Memory” since it is part of the “Musical Theater Catalogue” and has been covered by everyone who’s anyone. According to Billboard, Barry Manilow’s rendition of “Memory” hit #8 on January 22, 1983. Not bad for a musical theater ditty. Despite its impressive Broadway run, “Cats” music didn’t hit the mainstream because, well, it’s a whimsical story about a bunch of cats and their idiosyncrasies, their names and their particular characteristics, and whether or not they deserve to “be reborn and come back to a different Jellicle Life.” Not exactly mainstream material.
So, my daughter wondered what madness was running through Sir Andrew’s mind when he created this zany tale. So zany, in fact, that her friend had to excuse himself from the theater because he was laughing so hard. She had no idea that this musical is based on T.S. Eliot’s Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats, which was published way back in 1939, nine years before Andrew Lloyd Webber was born. As an aside, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s most popular shows all came from other source material. “Evita” is based on the life of a real person, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” and “Jesus Christ Superstar” are both from the Bible, and “Phantom of the Opera,” “Sunset Boulevard,” and “School of Rock” are all based on films of the same name. His prolific musical theater collection illustrates his ability to adapt stories to the stage and four of them were also made into major motion pictures. He even earned an Oscar in 1997 for “Evita” and the televised version of “Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert” earned him an Emmy, which made him one of the few to earn EGOT status. The guy is a talented adapter, there’s no question.
Anyway, on New Year’s Day I decided to give “Cats” a chance. I’d seen the musical a few times and never loved it in the way I love “Les Misérables” but the music was catchy and the ability of the cast to embody felines onstage was kind of impressive despite the fact that I am a dog person, through and through. As the finale states, a cat will not “condescend/to treat you as a trusted friend” since he “resents familiarity” and expects “evidences of respect.”
I just don’t get it.
I had grown up in a world where “Cats” was a thing and I had listened to the original cast recording enough to have the songs embedded in my brain. I am not a “fan” but I was ready.
Having seen many of these “Made for TV” musicals and major motion adapted versions of some of my favorites, I knew that I should expect some changes. Moviemakers can do anything they want when they’re filming. They’re not limited to a stage. Or a limited number of cast members. Or limited time. Or limited finances. The world is their oyster and a director can decide to take a movie in any direction he chooses making the possibilities endless.
Was I entertained? Yes. Was the cast talented? Yes. Was the music good? Yes. Did Jennifer Hudson make me cry? Yes. But that’s about it. As the credits rolled, I just kept wondering what Tom Hooper was thinking. His “Les Misérables” was pretty good (with the exception of the horrid Russell Crowe), and although the source material for “Cats” will never match that of Les Mis, I just don’t understand the decisions he made to change the original story so much and to use So. Much. Computer. Generated. Imagery.
The original Broadway version had actual humans on stage in Spandex and face paint and they were very convincing as cats despite this low-tech costuming. Why oh why did they feel the need to use computers to create the look of the cats in the film? Mostly it was just distracting and disturbing. Perhaps the $95 million dollars they spent could have been put to better use on costumes instead of computers. The same goes for the set. Much of it was computer generated and so most of the dancing looked like a video game—the feet often didn’t actually touch the “floor,” which made me wonder what percent of the performance was actually “danced” and what percent was digitized. Francesca Hayward, who plays “Victoria” in the movie, is a principal dancer in the Royal Ballet in London. However, how much of her dancing was actually her body and how much was created through CGI? It was hard to tell and that was disappointing. The talented cast they assembled for this movie deserved to be better represented on the screen instead of being digitally “air-brushed” and manipulated.
As far as the story line, the changes/additions they made most often served no purpose and made the story line (we meet a bunch of cats and one of them earns another life at the end) more confusing, if you can believe it. James Cordon and Rebel Wilson have some one-liners that add a little (but not much) humor and the writers create a side story about Macavity that has nothing to do with the original. My daughter really had no idea what this movie was about and a whole generation of hopeful theater folk who went to see “Cats” hoping to see a “Broadway show” on the big screen are being gypped.
The best I can say is that I didn’t hate it and that I don’t regret spending the money to see it at the movies instead of waiting for it to stream on Netflix. It was entertaining and fun but it wasn’t really “Cats,” it was kind of a dog.