Tom Hooper Directing "Cats" Movie- Page 4

[Justin D]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 8:32am

I love cats, but I dont get it, the whole point of cats is that its a dance heavy show, so if you CGI it and dont have human proportions the dancing WONT WORK, and if you CGI it with human proportions it would just look weird. Why then not just film people. and again, i do LOVE cats but do we really need this when there is a perfectly fine DVD of the show?

[Justin D]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 8:32am

I'd much rather them remake a decent Phantom movie

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 9:35am

I initially read this as "Tobe Hooper" and not "Tom Hooper." I thought the director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was an interesting choice for a Cats movie. Especially since we died last year.

 

Compared to that intriguing prospect, I am considerably less enthused about a Tom Hooper adaptation. Cats is all about live spectacle. There's essentially no plot. They'd really have to pull out all the stops to make a film version work, and even then I'm not sure I would want to sit through it.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:09am

Gizmo6 said: "

Lea Salonga hasn’t appeared in a musical role moviein the cinema.

"

I know, but she sang in Aladdin, which is also about sung thoughts in film.

There is a reason there are songs in this artform, and apologizing for them is not the solution to believable emotions. In fact, it makes the acting insincere. Acting in spite of song is the opposote of acting through song, which is conveying emotions through notes.

This is why it is so important to embrace real, truthful singing in movies, as it represents sung thoughts, which should never be taken too literal. This artform is per definition not literal.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 10:09 AM

[David10086]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:14am

I remember when a movie version was FIRST announced back in the mid-1980s, by Andrew Lloyd Webber. It was shortly after the success of 'We Are the World' was released in 1985 (in some interviews he said he was 'inspired' by how all these great singers came to record together). 

Back then he proposed an animated version of 'CATS'. and had a number of singers lined up to match each character (according to him, they were signed on and 'ready to start recording', so no acting talent was required  -  just go into the booth and record your character. (Easy enough). He then announced his roster of musical talent to make this a hit on the screen and as the movie soundtrack. 

I recall him saying Streisand was signed on for Grizabella (with a new recording to be done of 'Memory', not the one she recorded in 1981), Michael Jackson was to sing for Rum Tum Tugger, Sheena Easton was to sing for Bombalurina, etc. Over the next few years, the cast was changed  around (Diana Ross was replacing Streisand who was reportedly 'no longer interested', Sheena Easton was replaced by Whitney Houston who was now the big star, Bryan Adams was replacing Jackson who then wanted too much money, etc. We all know the drill with ALW projects. And the movie got delayed, delayed, delayed. 

By  the early 1990s, the project - like many of his announced projects - fell apart...but it was fun while it lasted! 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:16am

Justin D said: "I'd much rather them remake a decent Phantom movie"

I totally agree. Preferably one with actual singing this time and therefore acting through song.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 10:16 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:17am

I'm not upset about the motion capture CGI since we've come a long way in that front and it was actually my first thought when I heard they were turning this into a movie. The new Planet of the Apes films and even Gollum from the Lord of the Rings films do show how CGI characters can look when done right. I am more worried about Tom Hooper. I don't think he knows how to direct musical films. The pacing and editing requires a special skill to really make them work well on the film medium and I don't know if I can say I've seen a modern film musical that I would say has done it well like they used to be done. Honestly, when Patti Lupone said Rachel Bloom is the only one lately who seems to know what she's doing when film musical sequences for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, I know some people scoffed because Patti guest starred in Crazy Ex, but I really do believe she's right.

I also agree with Dave about the live singing. I think live singing should be used sparingly and with a purpose for that one song/scene or actor (in Rex Harrison's case as he sung live but it really hit Higgins having a fit and it matched well with his talk-singing). Like if they were to ever re-do a Gypsy film, the only live singing I'd probably want to see is Louise singing "Little Lamb" because it's quiet, almost like a lullaby, and Louise hasn't quite found her voice yet as she's singing softly to herself. Other than that, nope.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 10:17 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:34am

What these film directors seem to fail to understand is that it's about sung thoughts. They can't grasp the language and feel ashamed by it and think that toning it down, speak-bleating 4 words and then use vibrato on the 5th is the solution. Make it soap-opera and pretend that's raw and real. It's not. The realness lies in taking it all they way to a non-literal world.

In many movies the get it right, for example "something there" in the original Beaty and the Beast film it  is actually a voice-over. It is about sung thoughts, where you see other sings happening and you don't see the characters mouthing the words. In the live action remake, they stepped into the pitfall again and made it literal, speaking all the words and see them mouthing the whole song. This could have been such a marvelous scene, if taken to the next level, if they had the guts the original makers had.

If they make a Miss Saigon movie, they need to play with these sung thoughts too. Last night of the world is very intense in Kim and Chris' experience. So we need to see a beautiful space, sweltering, a fan, wood, fabric flowing and we need to travel with them on their notes. What we do not need to see is a small, dirty, empty, conrete room with mold (which is probably what the reality was) with speak bleating 4 words and sing the 5th. This artform is about sung thoughts and experiences. Non-literal. The choir of ghosts after Thuy's death should not be some people walking in the street between a clothing line, but a big black, undefined space with a choir of ghosts. Because it is in Kim's mind. It's the end of the world for her. In "I still believe" we should see scenes of Chris and Kim in scenes we haven't seen before, or scenes of Kim's parents in her scene where she sings to their picture. The transition between Kim and Ellen in I still believe could be done in a great cinematic way.

With a Cats movie, the given of the characters and songs is so non-literal, as is the artform, that they should play with all the possibilities of sung thoughts and cinematography, and use the songs as voice overs etc. The worst thing they can do is step into the "literal" pitfall again. 

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 10:34 AM

[Jessetenny]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:48am

The only way I will see this is if Anne Hathaway or Nicole Scherzinger (or Meryl) are Grizabella. I can't stand the show but if they get a power house Grizabella, I might see this.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:51am

Modern movie audiences are so far removed from the art form that they can't grasp the concept that the songs being sung in musicals are really sung thoughts or a conversation that is so emotional and passionate that the music is a tool to convey what the characters are feeling deep down even when they are singing to each other. Like I watched a video of "Tonight" from the 1961 film, and one comment that kept on being repeated was asking why was Maria so worried about having to keep quiet so her papa couldn't hear Tony but then they went ahead and sang at the top of their lungs. It's like, the song isn't literally being sung out loud in the context of the scene so their neighbors and everyone on the street becomes their audience. It's an expressed thought and you're supposed to suspend the thought that people can hear them. I think it gets confusing for some people when there are songs between characters or when there are group numbers where people are observing others. It's not that hard, IMO. In some songs people are participants in the feeling that's going on and in others, most likely those off-screen, they are not.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:57am

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Modern movie audiences are so far removed from the art form that they can't grasp the concept that the songs being sung in musicals are really sung thoughts or a conversation that is so emotional and passionate that the music is a tool to convey what the characters are feeling deep down even when they are singing to each other. Like I watched a video of "Tonight" from the 1961 film, and one comment that kept on being repeated was asking why was Maria so worried about having to keep quiet so her papa couldn't hear Tony but then they went ahead and sang at the top of their lungs. It's like, the song isn't literally being sung out loud in the context of the scene so their neighbors and everyone on the street becomes their audience. It's an expressed thought and you're supposed to suspend the thought that people can hear them. I think it gets confusing for some people when there are songs between characters or when there are group numbers where people are observing others. It's not that hard, IMO. In some songs people are participants in the feeling that's going on and in others, most likely those off-screen, they are not."

I see your point, but I actually think that people are very much used to understanding singing, they walk around all day with songs in their ears. I just think there is a very fine line of truthful singing that works in film, versus going overboard one way or another. They either go overboard Broadway style or they go overboard soap opera, speak-bleating, apologizing for singing style. Which are both funest in film and make people feel they are far removed from it.

This video is a good example of the truthful singing, which will always work in my opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4NNlEPraKo

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 10:57 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 11:00am

David10086 said: "I remember when a movie version was FIRST announced back in the mid-1980s, by Andrew Lloyd Webber. It was shortly after the success of 'We Are the World' was released in 1985 (in some interviews he said he was 'inspired' by how all these great singers came to record together).

Back then he proposed an animated version of 'CATS'. and had a number of singers lined up to match each character (according to him, they were signed on and 'ready to start recording', so no acting talent was required - just go into the booth and record your character. (Easy enough). He then announced his roster of musical talent to make this a hit on the screen and as the movie soundtrack.

I recall him saying Streisand was signed on for Grizabella (with a new recording to be done of 'Memory', not the one she recorded in 1981), Michael Jackson was to sing for Rum Tum Tugger, Sheena Easton was to sing for Bombalurina, etc. Over the next few years, the cast was changed around (Diana Ross was replacing Streisand who was reportedly 'no longer interested', Sheena Easton was replaced by Whitney Houston whowas now the big star, Bryan Adams was replacing Jackson who then wanted too much money, etc. We all know the drill with ALW projects. And the movie got delayed, delayed, delayed.

By the early 1990s, the project - like many of his announced projects - fell apart...but it was fun while it lasted!"

This is really interesting, I could see this work today with some of the world's best singers giving their takes on the songs/scenes in their own style. Making it a triumph of the fantasy. Almost like a beautiful videoclip, such as some scenes in the Evita film are a triumph of the fantasy, but then with better singing.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 11:00 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 11:06am

Jessetenny said: "The only way I will see this is if Anne Hathaway or Nicole Scherzinger (or Meryl) are Grizabella. I can't stand the show but if they get a power house Grizabella, I might see this."

I would rather see Nicole Scherzinger taking me to emotional places with her truthful voice and storytelling than see Anne Hathaway lying on the street, doing her literal posturing, apologizing for the material, thing again, which makes everybody wonder why she is actually attempting singing. The cry card does not work this time.

I could pick any woman I know, put a camera on her crying face and put some glorious violins in the background, and it would evoke an emotion. But people will always wonder why you are singing if the singing makes no sense and you apologize for it, and you act in spite of it.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 11:06 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 11:24am

I think the director and actors need to trust the material more. I understand some times the emotion or character takes over, but it does become distracting when it become so extra. It's like when I finally saw a clip of Sierra Boggess in Phantom after hearing how amazing she was as Christine. When I looked up her version of "Wishing You were Somehow Here Again" I could not believe the amount of overemoting and overacting that was going on. It really took me out of the scene because I saw someone trying too hard to convey the angst or whatever. The material is already there, and I think a more natural approach will bring the emotion through. I think people really don't trust the audience or themselves to convey it through natural singing or subtlety so they feel they have to compensate by making sure the audience is hit over the head with whatever it is the performer is intending to convey. It doesn't even have to be songs either, some times actors are guilty of that with dialogue. I wonder how much of it is truly a lack in trust of the performers by directors, and a lack of trust of the actor's in their own abilities and in the audience's abilities to understand the conveyed emotions without histrionics. 

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 11:24 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 12:52pm

Thanks Scotty, I think your last post hits the nail on its head.

If you look at the video I posted, the original 1989 Miss Saigon is so much more emotional and truthful than the later versions. Because they trust the material, like you said "The material is already there, a more natural approach will bring the emotion through". The melodies and lyrics create a power beyond belief. I think that in fact this "overemoting" is not only disrespectful to the material, but it makes scenes lose its sincerity and truthfulness. It basically puts the singing in an apologizing role which makes it feel very posturing and overly dramatic. This is the reason that viewers can't engage. It's distraction.

I think it is mainly the underestimation of the material. It may also be a lack of understanding the material or the inability to feel the material enough to feel it does the work already. Some performers and directors treat it in a too literal way, too much like soap-drama, which makes this material extremely awkward. As it's per definition not literal. It's the opposite approach that creates the magic.

The "There is something I must do" line in the clip I posted is a good example of that. Hugh Jackman makes it feel too literal and disconnected and the acting feels fake and overemoted and you wonder why he sings that word that way, while the other Valjean makes it very filmic and makes the illusion of the artform feel real and natural.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 12:52 PM

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 1:11pm

How boring would theatre be if Dave or Scotty got to dictate.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 1:13pm

Truthful and glorious you mean.

Not the self-pitying, overemoted crap people pretend is the artform now.

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 01:13 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 7:11pm

Gizmo6, it's just an opinion. Every director/actor/theatre lover who knows their own mind have certain qualities that they like above others and a stylistic point-of-view. It's not like anything Dave and I have said is so off-the-wall or crazy. Nor am I saying to be so inflexible to not let performers take what was done before and add to it. But everybody has their threshold as to what becomes "extra" or what is too "unemotive" and "bland". It's ok, It's not so bad being called "boring" or my opinions "boring". A lot of lauded performers have been called boring on this forum. 

Updated On: 6/22/18 at 07:11 PM

[David10086]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 7:59pm

I don't need CATS, I don't need another PHANTOM (I like the 2004 one for what it's worth - entertainment), I don't even want another EVITA (though we desperately need one)....just get Streisand in front of the camera and bookend her film career with SUNSET BOULEVARD, please. Please? (And no John Travolta in anything - not Max, and certainly not Joe!)...

 

And while we're at it...can we please have a decent remake of my favorite musical, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC? The Taylor one wasn't awful as some suggest (thanks to Diana Rigg), but it needs a good remake -  with a great actress (not CZJ). 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 6/22/18 at 10:10pm

Wow, people have some super-strong feelings about this. It seems like every other post in this thread is a novel!

Dave10086, I specifically cited A Little Night Music in my blog ranking of Sondheim movies...I won't link to the whole post, but you might share my sentiments: "I have several problems with the Night Music movie, but the two chief ones are Liz Taylor’s portrayal of Desiree Armfeldt and what happened to the gorgeous score of the stage show. While I understand the studio probably needed a big name to fill the leading lady role, Taylor was certainly an…um…inspired choice. She isn’t believable as the irresistibly troubled diva. Her “Send in the Clowns” is fairly forgettable- and while we’re talking about the music, this film cut some of the show’s best numbers, including “Liaisons” (reducing the great Hermione Gingold to a throwaway role) and “In Praise of Women” (which pretty much defines the Count’s entire character)."

[Dave28282]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 5:43am

I woud also like to hear from people like Gizmo, why they prefer the 2nd takes of examples in the clip I posted, the ones with what I call: Distraction. Either going overboard Broadway style, or going overboard speak-bleating with a long vibrato on the last word, and why that disconnect appeals to them.

All the first examples have much more emotion, truthfulness, filmic quality and intention and less disconnect. 

I also truly wonder if certain directors and people like Hugh Jackman are actually aware of the disconnect and insincerity they create in the material. Separating it and "acting in spite of song" is not "acting through song".

Updated On: 6/23/18 at 05:43 AM