Emma Busch
Contributing Writer
As someone who has always loved anything related to cats, whether it was the Warriors book series or “The Aristocats,” I felt a sense of obligation to see the new “Cats” movie, directed by Tom Hooper, despite how cringey the trailer looked. I had seen the musical when I was younger so I already knew that the entire concept of the story is abnormal. After seeing both the show and the movie, I still cannot exactly define what a Jellicle cat is or where they go when they win the Jellicle Ball despite there being an entire song about it.
The basic plot of “Cats” is hard to summarize. The movie consists of various cats introducing themselves through song as they compete in front of Old Deuteronomy, the wise leader of the Jellicle cats played by Judy Dench, at the Jellicle Ball. The performing cats include Theatre Cat Gus (Ian McKellen), an older washed up performer; Bustopher Jones (James Corden), a cat with the goal to gain as much weight as possible; and Macavity (Idris Elba), a mysterious and sinister cat plotting to win the ball on unfair terms. The basic concept of the plot does not change much between the musical and the movie, so why was the movie given such terrible criticism while the musical was wildly popular in the ’80s (maybe because it was the ’80s)?
Perhaps the reason the movie was more jarring than the show for me is because traditionally, theatre tends to be more avantgarde and out of the box with the costumes and songs. The wardrobe team has to use more creativity to create the characters without the use of CGI and special effects. The movie version of “Cats” was able to use CGI, but this may have been to their disadvantage. As far as criticisms and reactions to the movie, the CGI was one of the first negatives people pointed out. It is hard not to react to the CGI immediately because it is in your face throughout the movie. The entire concept of humans acting as cats is already a little strange, but the CGI puts it over the edge. Where the costumes for the musical create the effect of cats, the CGI attempts to bring so much realism into it that the humancat hybrids look even more unnatural. Something about the actors’ cat ears and tails twitching as they talk is incredibly unnerving and even worse are the CGI cockroaches and mice with human faces that dance during Rebel Wilson’s song (until she eats them). While an important part of acting is taking on the mannerisms of your subject, watching humans take on feline habits, such as nuzzling faces instead of hugging, combined with the creepy CGI made me regret sitting in the front row of the movie theater.
Despite all these reasons to hate the movie, I left the theater pleased that I saw “Cats.” It is a mess, but the most extravagant and elaborate mess. The dancing and the songs and the baffling number of celebrities that agreed to be in the movie bring a sense of celebration to the experience. Some of the performances could even be categorized as charming. The character of the magical Mr. Mistoffelees, a magician cat that wears a top hat throughout the movie, gives the audience a character to root for as he bumbles through his magic. Additionally, the roles of the leads are filled by talented performers like Francesca Hayward and Laurie Davidson, who plays Mr. Mistoffelees. Their energy and exuberant dancing give the movie life and create an element for the audience to enjoy. Their performances manage to surpass the creepy effects of the CGI, an achievement that deserves some kind of film award.
Will I watch “Cats” again? No, I certainly hope not. Do I regret seeing it? Not at all. The absurdity and extravagance alone make it worth the watch. I am unable to categorize “Cats” as either a good or a bad movie because it transcends any rating system I would usually have for a movie. I would recommend giving it a watch, if only to be able to say you have experienced this undeniably memorable movie.