 |
| I mean, it's certainly joyful for those who like cinematic garbage. |
So, the Cats movie adaptation was a thing. It got slated by almost everybody as soon as the first teasers dropped, received even more negative reviews as soon as it actually got released, it bombed at the box office big time, it got nominated for nine Razzies and won six of them, including Worst Picture. Everyone now remembers it for being one thing - a cautionary tale about how NOT to adapt a stage musical for the silver screen.
Most people agree that the director Tom Hooper is to blame. He was the one who came up with the idea of the cats being CGI humans, after all. Sure, the fact that the studio rushed Cats for a Christmas release made things worse, but it's likely that it would have still been a trainwreck even without factoring that in.
So exactly went wrong? How did one of the most beloved (if also polarising) musicals end up being turned into a cinematic abomination?
To find the answer, I'll be looking back at Les Misérables, another musical adaptation that Tom Hooper directed back in 2012. Despite winning several awards and doing much better at the box office than his recent venture, I feel that it contains what we identify as the "original sins" (a term used by TV Tropes) of his directory work.
So What Is A Franchise Original Sin?
Now you may wonder why I chose Tom Hooper's musical adaptations for applying this term to. Well, first of all, it's something I've noticed being brought up in other online articles and videos and I wanted to expand on it further (especially since there isn't a TV Tropes article about it yet). Secondly, it's a topic that will still be relevant at the moment but will be outdated if I were to release this blog post later.
And thirdly, I was originally going to apply the term to the Ice Age films. But that would take up too many blog posts for now. So I'll deal with that later and stick with this for now.
Comparing The Films
So a bit about the Les Misérables movie. It is obviously based on the musical of the same name, which in turn was based on the novel by Victor Hugo. It tells both the story of a failed French uprising (which happened before the proper French revolution) and the story of Jean Valjean, a former crook who is trying to live a new life but is pursued by the determined Inspector Javert. It is what would be classified as a megamusical - it is entirely sung-through with barely any spoken lines, it has a grandiose stage set and a large cast and it makes a lot of money. To adapt something like that, Hooper had to make quite a few changes in order to make it better fit the feature film format.
| The most iconic of the Les Mis movie posters. |
When the film was released, it gained a worldwide gross of $441,809,770 ($148,809,770 domestically and $293,000,000 internationally) against a $61,000,000 budget. Not only did it snag the world record for the highest opening day gross for a musical film, but it also beat Mamma Mia! for the highest-grossing opening weekend for a musical film in the United Kingdom. It was nominated for many awards, most notably helping Anne Hathaway to win the Oscar, the BAFTA and the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress.
Les Misérables was a success, but it had its problems. People who disliked the movie criticised the bizarre use of cinematic techniques (the shaking cameras and close-ups were among some of the main issues) and some of the casting choices such as Russell Crowe's infamous stint as Inspector Javert. Now, I'm currently not a huge fan of Doug Walker (a.k.a. The Nostalgia Critic) and his works, especially after the whole "Channel Awful" controversy, but I have to admit that he does a very good review on the film that explores the main point about critical reactions - either people loved it or they hated it.
These issues would then carry onto Cats. Like Les Misérables, the cinematic techniques and special effects were absurd, and it was more intent on having as many famous actors and celebrities as possible without worrying about whether they would be well-suited for their roles or not. Sometimes, well-established characterisations of characters were altered in questionable ways just to reflect the personality of their actors more clearly. Many people even brought up the problems of Les Mis in order to further emphasise their criticisms of Cats. But unlike Les Mis, Cats would only dominate the Razzies rather than anything designed to show it a little bit of respect.
So what saved Les Misérables? Simple. A combination of some genuinely brilliant actors and the lack of crappy CGI, as well as source material with a strong plotline.
The casting.
To go in depth on casting, many of the stars of Les Mis are recognisable actors such as Hugh Jackman, Amanda Seyfried and the previously mentioned Hathaway and Crowe. And whilst some of them have experience in musical theatre, some of them don't. With Crowe, he only had experience in folk rock. I also did some quick research on the casting choices and although the brilliant Samantha Barks ultimately got the role of Éponine, two of the stars being considered for the role included Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift (though the latter went on to be in Cats).
Taking the final cast and the original casting choices into accounts, it's clear to me that there was more concern for big names that people could "relate" to than actors who had musical theatre experience. But aside from Crowe, most of us were willing to push that flaw aside. Jackman and Barks were highly praised, along with newcomer Eddie Redmayne, and Hathaway stole the show with her award-bait performance as the fallen woman Fantine.
Even if we were to remove the crappy CGI from Cats, none of the performances in the latter film are truly Oscar-worthy. Sure, plenty of the actors seemed to be having a fun time and apparently wanted to do this for a while (Swift really hams it up and steals the show as Bombularina despite said character having her characterisation butchered), but that's about it. And even if there was potential for an award-bait performance, the CGI makes it harder to notice, as we're too focused on that and the faces are covered up by that weird fur stuff.
And then there was the casting of Rebel Wilson as Jennyanydots, which was hated by even the most die-hard defenders of the film. Her crude stage personality did not fit the character well and quite rightly. This isn't anything new though. In Les Mis, Sacha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter are cast are the wily Thénardiers, and their quirky and risque stage personalities are associated with the characters. Most notably is the moment when Monsieur Thénardier steals money from a man dressed as Santa Claus being humped by a prostitute, a scene curiously described in the Nostalgia Critic review as "Santa rape". I have looked up to see if that scene was in the original show - apparently it wasn't.
The Thénardiers are nasty pieces of work anyway. They swindle people out of money and mistreat Cosette when she's a child. Plus, they were always a twisted form of comic relief anyway. So that weird sex scene can be somewhat forgiven, especially since the Thénardiers weren't the ones having sex with Santa themselves. But Jennyanydots is a motherly if stern matron who teaches mice and cockroaches to improve their habits. With Wilson playing her, she becomes a more ghastly figure who tortures them rather than looks after them. It is her alone who strips off her fur to reveal a tacky dance outfit similar to ones from the 1940s underneath it, her alone who eats the cockroaches that happen to have kid's faces CGI-imposed on to them.
The same goes with the Bustopher Jones segment, where he gets played by James Corden. Bustopher is meant to be a high-class cat with refined manners and taste...and yet in his segment, the cats are eating from rubbish bins. Um, I'm sorry, does that scream "high-class" to you? I don't think so.
The worst part of the Bustopher segment is that Corden only uses that stage persona for the crappy films he appears in. When he's doing television in Britain, such as on Gavin & Stacy and The Wrong Mans, he doesn't have that particular image. Makes you wonder why it changes for the big screen.
Taking the final cast and the original casting choices into accounts, it's clear to me that there was more concern for big names that people could "relate" to than actors who had musical theatre experience. But aside from Crowe, most of us were willing to push that flaw aside. Jackman and Barks were highly praised, along with newcomer Eddie Redmayne, and Hathaway stole the show with her award-bait performance as the fallen woman Fantine.
Even if we were to remove the crappy CGI from Cats, none of the performances in the latter film are truly Oscar-worthy. Sure, plenty of the actors seemed to be having a fun time and apparently wanted to do this for a while (Swift really hams it up and steals the show as Bombularina despite said character having her characterisation butchered), but that's about it. And even if there was potential for an award-bait performance, the CGI makes it harder to notice, as we're too focused on that and the faces are covered up by that weird fur stuff.
And then there was the casting of Rebel Wilson as Jennyanydots, which was hated by even the most die-hard defenders of the film. Her crude stage personality did not fit the character well and quite rightly. This isn't anything new though. In Les Mis, Sacha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter are cast are the wily Thénardiers, and their quirky and risque stage personalities are associated with the characters. Most notably is the moment when Monsieur Thénardier steals money from a man dressed as Santa Claus being humped by a prostitute, a scene curiously described in the Nostalgia Critic review as "Santa rape". I have looked up to see if that scene was in the original show - apparently it wasn't.
 |
| And if you expect me to post a picture of the offending scene...urgh, you really disgust me. |
The Thénardiers are nasty pieces of work anyway. They swindle people out of money and mistreat Cosette when she's a child. Plus, they were always a twisted form of comic relief anyway. So that weird sex scene can be somewhat forgiven, especially since the Thénardiers weren't the ones having sex with Santa themselves. But Jennyanydots is a motherly if stern matron who teaches mice and cockroaches to improve their habits. With Wilson playing her, she becomes a more ghastly figure who tortures them rather than looks after them. It is her alone who strips off her fur to reveal a tacky dance outfit similar to ones from the 1940s underneath it, her alone who eats the cockroaches that happen to have kid's faces CGI-imposed on to them.
The same goes with the Bustopher Jones segment, where he gets played by James Corden. Bustopher is meant to be a high-class cat with refined manners and taste...and yet in his segment, the cats are eating from rubbish bins. Um, I'm sorry, does that scream "high-class" to you? I don't think so.
The worst part of the Bustopher segment is that Corden only uses that stage persona for the crappy films he appears in. When he's doing television in Britain, such as on Gavin & Stacy and The Wrong Mans, he doesn't have that particular image. Makes you wonder why it changes for the big screen.
The plots.
Another notable difference between both films was the story that they adapted. The original musicals are part of the "megamusical" genre, which features musicals with entirely sung dialogue and impressive spectacle. Sometimes in megamusicals, the plot is only given secondary focus so that the audiences can focus on the music and technology instead. However, due to the original Les Mis being based on a novel rich with plot and characterisation, this was not a problem at all. With musicals like that, all that needs to be done for the silver screen is maybe some expansion on the plot (possibly even adding spoken dialogue if necessary) and the adaptation's good to go.
With the original Cats however, that musical was based on Old Possum's Book Of Practical Cats by T.S. Eliot, a selection of poems that only linked together due to the theme of cats in them and some minor references characters from other poems. The plot itself is simply about members of the Jellicle tribe trying to get a chance to go of a journey to the "Heaviside Layer" and be reincarnated, even though it seems that many of the cats (excluding Grizabella and Gus) are still young and healthy and could possibly do with sticking around a bit more. The plot itself is not that much in depth and some people have come up with some interesting interpretations of it (my favourite one possibly being that the cats are all dead and in the afterlife anyway). Consequently, trying to expand upon it resulted in new issues, such as trying to expand the role of the very minor character Victoria and have her replace the more prominent Jemina, and turning the sexually-confident yet ultimately well-meaning Bombularina into a devious supporter of the villain Macavity (um, slut-shaming much?).
Summing It All Up
I think by now I've summed up what I feel were the main comparisons with both films. They're adapted from sung-through megamusicals that may or may not work better onstage, they feature all-star casts involving actors that may or may not be suited for the characters they have been assigned for. But in general, Les Mis is at least able to distract us from some of those flaws with its good points, something that Cats was unable to do.
Overall, this just goes to reveal Hooper's biggest flaw. He has several grandiose and ambitious ideas for adapting musicals, but he doesn't know how to put them to proper use. Cats just made said flaw more obvious.
Think of Cats as the inverse Springtime For Hitler from the comedy classic The Producers. With the latter, the titular characters try and put on the worst show possible with an offensive script and terrible actors, but ultimately they create an accidental success that is seen as a satire of the Nazi regime. With Cats, it's the opposite. Hooper clearly thought that he had found the "perfect" special effects and the "perfect " cast for a film based on a well-loved musical, but combined together, they ended up creating an absolute trainwreck.
Looking back, it's easy to track down Hooper's decline in cinema. He had massive success with The King's Speech, did okay with Les Mis and The Danish Girl and then sucked with Cats. He could potentially have a comeback if he does a better film afterwards, but given the points that I've brought up, it's unlikely that he will completely be able to cover up the flaws in his film-making style again. Which is not a completely bad thing, but it's still something to keep in mind.
[10th April UPDATE: Coincidentally at the same time that I uploaded this article, online reviewer Lindsay Ellis uploaded the video "Why Cats?" that brings up some of the same points that I do. I did not know this until the 9th April, and I am so happy that she has explored this topic as well. This one actually goes further into the analysis of "Oscar-bait" musical adaptations such as their origins. Seriously, she does really good videos and I've feel they're gotten even better over the years, especially with the increasing emphasis on film theory and analysing details. I'll put the link here so that you can check it out - it's a really interesting analysis and a fun one too. Remember to check out her other videos as well. ;)]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6iqAip-ZNo
Looking back, it's easy to track down Hooper's decline in cinema. He had massive success with The King's Speech, did okay with Les Mis and The Danish Girl and then sucked with Cats. He could potentially have a comeback if he does a better film afterwards, but given the points that I've brought up, it's unlikely that he will completely be able to cover up the flaws in his film-making style again. Which is not a completely bad thing, but it's still something to keep in mind.
[10th April UPDATE: Coincidentally at the same time that I uploaded this article, online reviewer Lindsay Ellis uploaded the video "Why Cats?" that brings up some of the same points that I do. I did not know this until the 9th April, and I am so happy that she has explored this topic as well. This one actually goes further into the analysis of "Oscar-bait" musical adaptations such as their origins. Seriously, she does really good videos and I've feel they're gotten even better over the years, especially with the increasing emphasis on film theory and analysing details. I'll put the link here so that you can check it out - it's a really interesting analysis and a fun one too. Remember to check out her other videos as well. ;)]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6iqAip-ZNo
