In defense of ‘Cats’ – from a guy who liked it
Social media chatter is raining cats thanks to the release of director Tom Hooper’s critically maligned movie.
When the trailer for “Cats,” based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, arrived in July, I was correct to be concerned. Human faces on computergenerated cats with “digital fur technology?” Why did everyone look naked? What was Jason Derulo doing there? Wait, was that ... yes, it’s Judi Dench! And Ian McKellen! And ... Taylor Swift?!
All those concerns I had turned out to be true: The movie is outlandish and sexual and confusing. But that doesn’t make it a bad movie. In fact, I’m going to call it a good movie.
I realize many of you may stop reading this now and question my upbringing (my parents are lovely), education (I have a master’s degree, if my diploma ever arrives) and general well-being (I have friends and can afford my apartment).
Trust me: This meowvie is worth your time thanks to its quizzical costuming, its focus on musical numbers over plot substance and overall desire to not take itself too seriously.
Yes, those are human-like features
These cats have human actor faces, which you knew from the trailer. Once you take a deep breath and accept this as canon, you’ll have a much happier filmgoing experience.
Hooper’s cats have fur-free human hands. Look, that’s weird. But this is a movie about the inner lives of cats singing their way to a “Jellicle ball,” so the weird quotient was already dialed up to an impossibly high degree.
Universal reportedly told theaters it’s in the process of delivering an updated version with improved visual effects, if that makes you feel better.
I’m not sure which version I watched this past weekend, but the cut I saw kept me interested. Buy into the shtick, and you’ll laugh at Rebel Wilson’s dance scene alongside mice and bugs with human faces (though few will be exempt from confusion when she’s able to unzip her fur). Because I accepted I was living in the world of Jellicle cats, I quickly shrugged off the perplexing sequence and waited patiently for the next song.
My colleagues asked an important question: “Is this musical set in the aftermath of some sick nuclear holocaust that mutated animals, cursing them with a slapdash assortment of human body parts?” I’d argue I don’t need an answer.
The music is still stellar (except for that new song)
No, “Cats” isn’t an Andrew Lloyd Webber triumph like “The Phantom of the Opera” (which he composed), but
it includes one of the greatest show tunes of all time. Oscar-winner Jennifer Hudson singing “Memory” might even bring you to tears (like me).
Other songs such as “Mr. Mistoffelees,” “Macavity” and “The Rum Tum Tugger” will surely keep you entertained,
‘Cats’ doesn’t need to make sense
too.
USA TODAY critic Brian Truitt said that “if you’re not humming ‘Magical Mister Mistoffelees’ afterward, you may not have a pulse.” He’s right.
If you went to see “Cats” to see some kind of plot, I can see why you’d be disappointed. The “plot” is a bunch of Jellicle cats (not a real thing) trying to become the “Jellicle choice” to ascend to the heaven-like “Heaviside Layer”
Once you accept the fact that these cats are just trying to put on a good show and sing some songs, you can relax.
The only real problem is Swift’s new song, “Beautiful Ghosts,” which is not at all beautiful. The Academy left the warbly, out-of-place song off its shortlist of best original song nominations.
For those of you who wanted “Cats” to be tamer: In what world could a movie about singing “Cats” with a (very) loose plot starring Dench, Swift and Derulo be tame in any sense of the word?
Sure, “Cats” may not be for everyone, and haters will lick their wounds leaving the theater and gripe about their feelings on Twitter. I know as a child I fell asleep during the Broadway production, and only Peanut M&M’s could wake me up. But if you like it? Don’t be afraid to purr as loud as you please.