#just as Lindsay Ellis pointed out in Les mis | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

skimblyshanks · 3 years

Text

@hilli98215 made a great post summarizing a good handful of issues with a certain Lindsay Ellis review. I was gonna share my thoughts in a reblog but it got too long for comfort, so I'm posting it here:

I have to wonder if she only made this video bc it was the hot thing to dunk on CATS. I don't believe she's ever had any real interest in the show, before or after this video, and I'd argue it shows. She's passionate abt Les Mis and Phantom, theyre brought up often in other videos, but I feel like "Why is Cats" wasn't coming from a point of genuine analysis and curiosity, but to follow a trend in such a way that it seemed more balanced while missing any real investment in the show as a whole.

And I think that shows true, especially, as you said, in her tone. She still views CATS as a "lesser" musical (she and most of the theatre community at large), and so it feels like her appreciation of the stage show is more that...it's better than the movie to her. That's not some remarkable move of graciousness on her part, plenty of other backhanded critics were fast to put the stage version over the film; that doesn't stop them from clearly holding disdain for the show as a whole.

There doesn't seem to be that true level of respect. And honestly, with a name like "why is CATS," I'd gone in hoping that, in truth, minimal time would be spent on the movie, and instead we'd be looking at why the stage version works so well with so many people; why it's run p much non-stop around the world since it opened, and maybe a look at criticisms of the movie to figure out what part of the appeal was lost in translation.

Especially since, you know, actually reaching out to more of the actual fanbase and researching its history would probably have helped stop segments like "movie mistoffelees is heteronormative", because she would have seen that Mistoffelees/queen ships, especially Mistoffelees/Victoria, have always had a presence in fandom.

but it wasn't about that. It wasn't about answering "who likes CATS, and why" it wasn't about "Do fans of the stage version have issues with this version, too? What are they and why?" It wasn't an exploration of an almost 40 year old fan base to see just why this show is such a universal phenomena, because she probably didn't want to know more and understand the appeal in the first place, she wanted to point and laugh at the movie she didn't like adapting a musical she didn't like while presenting it as almost objective fact that the movie is bad.

Her tone was condescending because she was condescending; she presents incomplete and flawed arguments bc she doesn't get the draw of the original piece. She can research the history and parrot it back just fine, but that doesn't mean she necessarily gets what didn't click for a lot of ppl moving from stage to screen. The same thing carries over to the disregard of the performers and choreographer. Any level of research into the fan community (and like, the current history of the show) would have let her know that

A.) so many of the cast are alumni of/were currently in the show, and

B.) Andy's choreography was already divisive when it was partially implemented in the revival, a lot of ppl are going to raise a fuss abt it being completely new again.

Her lack of genuine interest in the show also kinda shows in critique of appearances; there's not a real understanding of how hard it is to not make these characters creepy onstage, and how near impossible it had to have been to figure out new designs from scratch, and how unrealistic it ultimately is, given what we KNOW abt VFX's insane time crunch, to expect a whole bunch of easily distinguishable looks for background cats. It's a flawed video bc it's a cash grab video. She knew what ppl wanted to hear, came in not caring for or about the show as a whole, and made a video to reach the conclusion ppl wanted to hear. A valid question was raised in the beginning: "who likes CATS?" If this was a video she wanted to do beyond "hating on CATS is popular and with my usual production quality I will read as less biased" she would have taken the gulp and looked into the fandom. and that would likely have been more of the video. But it wasn't, and that wasn't her motivation.

#Tl; dr(understandable bc I hit the word limit lmao):Why Is Cats is #despite not being as obvious as a lot of other videos #a bad faith analysis by someone who didn't actually try and figure out a key aspect to the movie's reception #being #why do ppl like the stage version

14 notes · View notes

crossdressingdeath · 3 years

Note

about the cats video, i know lindsay ellis made a video essay on cats that mentions tom hooper taking out the queer subtext but it’s not really the point of the video, it’s more about every thing he did wrong in general. it’s a good video but not sure it’s what you’re looking for. it’s also possible you’ve already watched her video so sorry. since i don’t have anything else for that i’ll just recommend sidways’ video about the music in the movie and how tom hopper complete messed it up in case you’re interested in that as well

I’ve watched Lindsay Ellis’s video and I’m actually currently watching Sideways’s video! Both very good, although I will say that as someone who got her introduction to musical theatre through Cats Lindsay Ellis’s tone when talking about the musical comes across as almost mocking in a way that I very much did not like. Her thoughts on the movie are good, but... yeah, she doesn’t have a high opinion of the musical and it does show when she’s talking about both it and its fans. It might just be me, though. I’m enjoying Sideways’s a lot more, anyway, it’s fascinating (and making me wonder if my uni has courses on music theory and such). But what I’d like to find is a video comparing both Les Mis and Cats and going into how Hooper in both films completely cut out the queer subtext, removing pretty much all of Grantaire’s lines in Les Mis and giving both Tugger and Misto no homo moments and changing the singer of Magical Mister Mistoffelees in Cats. I just want to watch someone eloquent and intelligent talk about the vast amounts of no homo in Hooper’s work, honestly.

#i've rewatched lindsay's video a few times but after the first time i've skipped the first section where she talks about the musical #anon #asks

5 notes · View notes

paul-villerius · 6 years

Text

Beauty of the Beast 2017 in one word...

What is that one word I’m referring to in the title? I really didn’t want to have to use it, but it’s really the best word to use in this case.

This film is Superfluous.

Is it because it’s a remake of a film that doesn’t need fixing? No, and that’s exactly why I didn’t have to call it superfluous. Some people think of the Disney live-action remakes as cynical cash-grabs, and considering just how lucrative these intellectual properties are, it’s very understandable to see why. Personally, I do fault Disney for for this direction, but people who fault Disney may also want to fault the films themselves, but I don’t want to. The films may be cribbing their titles, but that doesn’t mean they’re cribbing the stories wholesale.

But here, I have to fault the movie, because that’s exactly what it’s doing.

Every scene, from the village to the forest to the castle, has been recreated. No important cuts have been made, and nearly all changes are either tonal or cosmetic; none of them change the flow of the story.

They did at least attempt to expand the story by adding several new scenes, but there are so many added, that even with 45 extra minutes of run-time, they fail to commit to any of the additions. I won’t call the Beast’s origin scene pointless, because although we learn nothing new, it’s really just a different way to introduce the story. However, Belle’s backstory? I guess she feels said, and it’s at least somewhat genuine, but then what? Nothing. Beast’s backstory? His father was mean; the end. The enchantress showing up here and there? What’s the point? Does she even have a character? And finally, there’s the townspeople remembering the castle at the end. I’m not trying to be spiteful in my phrasing, but since none of the townspeople were memorable characters, I don’t care.

There was also discourse about Belle being more progressive; for example, she tries to escape the first chance she gets, and is an inventor like her father. Considering none of these changes remotely affect the story, I can’t really see the big deal. It certainly doesn’t help that Emma Watson is way too recognizable to settle into the role. Maybe viewers unfamiliar with the role will be satisfied, but for someone familiar with the first film (as most will inevitably be. Even if you haven’t seen a Disney film, you’re still probably familiar with it) all I see is her going through the motions. Again, you learn that your mere existence caused you to split up your parents, and you feel sad... then what?

Alan Menken returned to right three new songs, but they don’t fit with the rest of the soundtrack, because the old songs were toetapping and memorable, but these new ones are more Les Mis-style grab you by the heart and blast emotions at you. I don’t think they were terrible, but they clash with the other songs, which are also fine, but have inferior visuals to the original.

I also didn’t care for the CG. Nothing looks like it’s there, and I didn’t care for the designs. They toned downed the design of the servants, preventing them from emoting so that... we could take this movie more seriously?

Clashing also, however, are the overarching themes. The original Disney film had the arc of the Beast opening up emotionally to Belle, but that wasn’t the theme of the original fairy tale, which was about Belle opening up to the Beast. Belle still opens up to him, but it seems much more like she’s expressing a virtue than going through an arc. If you want to learn more about that, check out this VIDEO by Lindsay Ellis, where she discusses that, and handful of other interesting and insightful things about the ‘91 film. This movie is ambitious in that it wants to try and balance the two, and I applaud the idea, but because the other additions made to support this change aren’t fleshed out, it feels empty rather than engaging. The Beast is something of a surprise intellectual, and that should have been so interesting to match with Belle, but aside from one or two cute scenes, again, it doesn’t change the story.

I think for a lot of people, my gripes come in full force with the portal book. I didn’t see a lot of specifics that could arise from the book, but for everyone else, this is the thing that opens up so many possibilities that the movie explores none of.

The rest of the cast, like Emma Watson, I felt were passable. However, considering this is Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, a film being sold to theaters, DVD, Blu-Ray, the works, I don’t feel like “passable” is good enough. The two exceptions in my opinion were Kevin Kline, who’s giving it his all, and Josh Gad, who’s turned Le Fou from stereotypical comic relief into a genuinely fun character, albeit with a wonky character mini-arc, but that’s on the writers, not Gad.

This movie isn’t terrible by any means, but the attempted expansion builds nothing new that stands higher than a rosebush, so we’re left with performances, and again, considering that they’re not spectacular, I feel that it’s only worthy of a live theater production. Not West End or Broadway (though having Watson aboard might guarantee a decent box office in those places), but still perhaps a big city where it could draw modest crowds. Maybe bringing this all together wasn’t worthless, but every DVD and Blu-Ray sale, every streaming deal, still feels...

...superfluous.

#beauty and the beast #disney #live-action remake #movie review #Paul Villerius

0 notes