Cats’ Re-Release Doesn’t Save The Film (It Made It Worse)

In response to the film’s disastrous reviews, Universal Pictures announced shortly after the international release of Cats that an alternate version of the movie with improved visual effects would be distributed and exhibited around the world – but this unprecedented move didn’t make the film better, it actually made it worse. Directed by Tom Hooper, who found success in adapting a stage musical onto the big screen with 2012’s Les Misérables, the hypnotically strange musical stars furry versions of Jennifer Hudson, Judi Dench, Taylor Swift, Jason Derulo, James Cordon, and newcomer Francesca Hayward.

The basis for the film is the infamous and interactive Cats stage musical composed by The Phantom of the Opera‘s Andrew Lloyd Webber. Conceived in the late 1970s and based on T.S. Eliot’s 1939 poetry collection Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats, the theater production premiered in London in the spring of 1981. In the years since, its unusual design and premise has garnered several prizes in the stage industry, and has gone on to become the fourth-longest-running Broadway show in history. As for the Tom Hooper film, while it is deeply rooted in its source material, the reception hasn’t been anywhere near as nice.

So much has been written about the movie’s strange approach to its inherently strange source material – be it the total insertion of a CGI environment, the actors’ digitally designed and furry bodies, or the often embarrassing results of each – that a theatrical re-release, while totally unprecedented, feels somewhat warranted. But even though Universal Pictures and Tom Hooper thought that the re-release would help their feline-based effort, one that they had once pushed as an awards contender, it only showed how terrible of an idea a Cats film was to begin with.

Why Cats Was Re-Released

Ever since its premiere late last year, Cats has been scorched by critics and audiences alike for its dodgy visual effects and strange CGI-engrossing approach to the material. Some audience members with a particularly keen eye were able to catch some specific inconsistencies throughout the musical. For instance, at one point in the original film, a man in a hooded sweatshirt could be spotted leering in the background amongst the cats, and on top of that, scattered throughout the production are strange instances in which the performers’ faces shift alongside their furry heads. But perhaps the most damning evidence against the film’s visual effects came when it was reported on Twitter (with a supporting image) that Judi Dench’s character Old Deuteronomy can be seen with a human hand, and the Skyfall actress’ own wedding ring.

It has been regularly reported that director Tom Hooper had been working on the CGI effects for Cats up until the last minute, admitting to the crowd at its December 16th premiere in Manhattan that he had put the final touches on the film early in the morning of December 15th. Whether or not the primary reason for this is a lack of time – both Hooper and Universal wanted to usher Cats into theater in time for awards season consideration – the final product, or the second-to-last product that is, was a hideous visual disaster, leading to the Cats movie re-release.

The Re-Release Makes Cats Even More Frustrating

While Hooper and Universal might have felt that re-releasing the movie would help its bid with audience members – and perhaps close some of the $71 million gap Cats is expected to lose – the fact that it was re-released makes the film so much more infuriating. Many productions these days take full advantage of (and in some cases, exploit) the technology that is available to them. Cats is one such production, a film that relies whole heartedly on the appeal of visual effects that it completely loses sight of what made its theatrical predecessor great (to some viewers, at least).

But the Cats re-release also shows that Universal had absolutely no notion about what would steer people towards their film. At this point, it may be safe to say that those who have gone to the theaters repeatedly to experience Cats have done so for the entertainment value of seeing a filmic monstrosity. Any attempt to tamper with that experience is simply cruel.

While Tom Hooper’s attempt may put the lid on future film adaptations of the specific Cats show, the idea of a re-release sets a terrible precedent for future filmmakers. Part of the risk of filmmaking is the impending reception or rejection of an audience. Allowing directors to go back and adjust their projects after they are done is a foolish idea, one that tampers with the idea of the filmmaking process and also the integrity of the exhibition process.

The Story Isn’t Cinematic, It’s Theatric

To say that something about Cats is lost in its transition from the stage to the big screen would be a horrific understatement. While the film shares a great deal in common with its live-action and theatrical predecessor, including its songs (with the exception of one brand new single, “Beautiful Ghosts”), it doesn’t work the same way. And why is that? Simply because the experience of Cats was not one that was designed for the big screen; it is meant for the stage.

Cats relies on an unsubtly strange story involving a pack of street cats – a group called the Jellicle Cats – who have a fair competition with one another to see who will become the Jellicle Choice. What exactly that choice entails is a bit odd, but the stage production’s musical numbers consist primarily of introductory songs to different candidates for the competition. The film adaptation does the same thing.

Now, the Cats stage musical can get away with presenting a plotless story by elaborately manipulating the stage and the theater. Often, the performers actually step out into the crowd and, with an impressive display of costuming and make up design, give the impression that they are actually the titular animals. The Cats film has no way of reaching that level of intimacy with the audience through that kind of interaction, especially when it relies so heavily on lifeless and frankly hilarious CGI, and so cannot succeed in the way the stage version does.