Cats in Film

I read an interesting post by Scott Weinberg on Cinematical today concerning the role cats play in film.  Weinberg complains that cats are often painted as either villains or victims on the screen, whereas dogs are touted as adorable, lovable heroes.  I couldn’t agree more.

I’m definitely a cat person.  Don’t get me wrong; dogs are great, and a cute pup makes my heart melt as much as the next person.  I just have a soft spot for cats.  But the public seems to have something against them.  Cats have a reputation for being cold and withdrawn.  People think cats don’t show affection for people.  Well, anyone who says that obviously hasn’t had a cat, because they’re definitely warm and loving.  They just aren’t as energetic and crazed in their affection as dogs.

This preference for dogs extends to film.  Think about all the movies you’ve seen with a dog as the adorable hero.  Ugh, there are too many to count.  Air Bud, My Dog Skip, Old Yeller, Lassie, Marley and Me…  The list goes on and on.  Try to think of cat movies, and it’s a struggle to even come up with one.  Well, one came to mind for me.  It was one of those movies I watched constantly as a child: The Three Lives of Thomasina (1964).

This Disney film tells the story of a cat named Thomasina (who narrates the film) who is injured and thought to be dead.  Her owner, a little girl, is distraught and holds a funeral in the woods for Thomasina.  When she and her friends encounter a mysterious young woman who is thought to be a witch, they run, leaving Thomasina in the care of the gentle witch, who nurses injured animals back to health.  The film follows Thomasina’s new life with the witch after losing all memory of her previous home.  The audience is left wondering whether Thomasina will ever find her way back to her rightful owner.  Although I loved this film as a child, and I think it’s rare in that it even focuses on a feline protagonist, I’m still not satisfied, because Thomasina doesn’t really drive the plot of the film.  She’s looked after and cared for, but she’s certainly never a hero like Lassie.

When writing about this cat/dog issue, I’m reminded of the female/male issue in film.  Many of the same problems arise when examining how women are portrayed in film.  Most protagonists and film heroes are men.  Women are usually a sidekick or a supporting character, and they’re often a roadblock for the protagonist in trying to reach his goal.  And the role of women in horror films has been written about and theorized over for decades.  Women are usually victims or villains in horror.  So it makes me wonder if part of this cat hate arises from the idea that felines are feminine and dogs are masculine.  I mean, women certainly seem more likely to be cat people.

No matter what the cause, the portrayal of cats in film should change.  It perpetuates stereotypes about cats that are rarely true.  Let’s see a movie about a heroic cat — or at least another cat narrator/protagonist like Thomasina.  Stop constantly making cats the bad guys and add some canine villains into the mix.  More cats are owned as pets than any other animal, so obviously there are a lot of movie-goers who would love to see the cat praised instead of ridiculed.  Maybe we need some Cats in Film courses in addition to the Women in Film classes now offered on campuses.  I’d take that class.

Playing Catch-Up: Fantastic Mr. Fox

It’s not every day you bump into an adult-friendly, PG-rated animated movie created using a visually refreshing format.  Disney-Pixar does it with every film they release, and there have been other successes (the original Shrek, for instance).  But, really, how many computer-animated movies can you make about animals with human personalities?  Farm  animals, prehistoric creatures, now wolves?  Well, Fantastic Mr. Fox gives animals personalities, but the usually clichéd concept is given flavor through a Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach-penned screenplay rife with plenty of their signature dry wit and quirky characterization.  The film is also propelled by a fresh, feel-good style of animation.  Not to mention brilliant voice-over work from George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, and the like.  I think this might be Wes Anderson’s best film (It’s certainly my favorite.), and I hope he continues on the animation track, because it works for his style.

The film is charming and laugh-out-loud funny from beginning to end.  It’s based on a book by Roald Dahl and follows the anthropomorphic Mr. Fox (Clooney) and his family and friends.  Fox seems to be suffering a bit of a mid-life crisis, and he decides he wants one last hurrah stealing chickens, a practice he gave up years ago at the request of his newly pregnant wife (Streep).  But this plan backfires when the victims of his crimes catch wind of his behavior.

The script really paints an endearing portrait of these animals, who live like humans, wearing suits and reading newspapers, but ultimately give in to their animal instincts.  The humor is spot-on, in line with that sarcastic, strange comedy of Anderson’s other films.  The opossum whose eyes randomly turn into starey vortexes.  The preteen jealousy Mr. Fox’s son (Schwartzman) feels toward his karate-chopping, trophy-winning, meditating cousin.  The Willem Dafoe-voiced rat who snaps his fingers West Side Story-style before a “rumble.”  It’s all very irreverent and grown-up, but still appropriate for kids.  And the eclectic choice of music only adds to the eccentric Wes Anderson tone.  From banjo songs to classic rock, it’s all unexpected and perfect.

The visual style of Fantastic Mr. Fox is also unexpected and perfect.  In an age when computer animation rules the screens and my generation yearns for the hand-drawn masterpieces of the Disney Renaissance, Anderson opts for something completely original and dazzling.  The animation is mostly stop-motion, which you don’t see as much as other forms of animation these days.  The film feels homemade and arts-and-craftsy.  In a good way.  The textures of the foxes’ furs look touchable, the colors are warm and vibrant, and the characters’ facial expressions never disappoint.  Every time Mr. Fox flashed that toothy smile, I couldn’t help but smile back.  Anderson doesn’t care about occasionally sacrificing realism.  The movie feels like a large-scale kids’ puppet show, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Of course, no good animated film is complete without a stellar voice-over cast.  Fox‘s doesn’t try to put on weird accents or inflections to emphasize the fact that they’re playing animals.  They speak like real people, and it makes their characters human and relatable.  I’m not usually a huge George Clooney fan (I can’t get past his inherent Clooneyness when I watch one of his films), but the guy has a really great speaking voice, and he gives Mr. Fox a sense of style and confidence while also playing his embarrassed or nervous parts well.  And Meryl Streep’s voice is just so delicious and velvety.  I love it.  She takes a simple, run-of-the-mill line and makes it melodic.  Jason Schwartzman is also excellent.  He successfully creates a nerdy, temperamental tween with a dry sense of humor.  It fits perfectly with the tone.

Let’s all give Wes Anderson a big hand for Fantastic Mr. Fox and hope he follows it up with another quietly hilarious, heartwarming animated quirk fest.

Playing Catch-Up: 8 1/2

The second of the movies I checked out from the public library last week is Federico Fellini’s 1963 Italian picture 8 1/2, so named because it was the number of the film on his list of projects so far as a director.

The film is about a director named Guido struggling to make a movie that means something to him while facing pressure from his collaborators to make a more marketable sci-fi film.  He also must deal with his relationships with various women in his life, including his wife, mistress, and leading lady.  Sound familiar?  That’s because the film was adapted into the stage musical Nine (clever title), which was turned into a movie last year.

While watching 8 1/2, I was reminded of Nine‘s catchy song “Cinema Italiano,” sung by Kate Hudson in a fabulous mod get-up.  I found myself wanting to break out singing, “I love the black and white/I love the play of light/The way (Fellini) puts his image through a prism… I love the dark handsome guys with their skinny little ties dressing mod looking out of sight.”  You get the idea.  That’s because 8 1/2 embodies what the song talks about.  The film is stylish and a pleasure to look at.  The black and white is stunning.  Whenever I see a black and white foreign film of the ’60s, I’m reminded of how beautiful black and white can look.  It makes people look ethereally beautiful.  I’m a fan of modern films with black and white cinematography; I think more need to be made.  It’s an aesthetic choice that affects the film’s mood.  Just look at 8 1/2 for proof.  Crisp men’s suits and angular sunglasses look so chic in black and white.  As a fan of fashion, especially that of the ’60s, I love looking at costumes, especially when they’re shot gorgeously.  That’s partly why I’m obsessed with Mad Men.  And black and white brings attention to the fact that you’re watching a film, while emphasizing it as an art form.

And the cinematography in general is fun to witness.  The shot composition is innovative and experimental.  Conventions are broken, and it works.  The fact that we don’t even completely see Guido’s face for the first scene and most of the second is fascinating, and it makes the sudden revelation of his appearance — from his point-of-view as he looks into a mirror — jarring.  Fellini’s style incorporates fantasies, dreams, and visions into an everyday story.  The film opens with a startling sequence in which Guido imagines himself driving in traffic.  The passengers in nearby cars stare at him strangely, and he begins suffocating, pounding on the windows and struggling to escape.  He finally leaves through the top of the car and floats into the clouds.  We then see him suspended on a rope from the beach, like a kite.  Remember, the whole time we don’t see his face.  These strange, often comical visions occur throughout the film.  It’s like on modern sitcoms when people imagine what things would be like (“what if” scenarios) and the actors perform these events, then return to real life.  Except in this case they’re more metaphorical.

The film was worth watching just because of the way it looked.  But the story was also quite good.  The pace was faster than I expected, and there was certainly more dialogue than I thought.  In order to read the subtitles, I had to carefully choose when to look down at my snack.  It definitely demanded my attention.  And I was happy to provide it.

So… Inception…

This is how a lot of people feel trying to interpret the movie.

So, now that a lot of people have seen Inception (#1 at the weekend box office), everyone’s trying to figure it out.  The plot is mind-bendingly complex and a lot of things appear to be plot holes — but that all depends on your interpretation.  Personally, I’m too exhausted from interpreting LOST to torture myself thinking about exactly what happened in Inception.  But the fact that it’s sparked such debate and theorizing is exciting.  In fact, Damon Lindelof, co-creator of LOST, tweeted, “I wish that someone would break into my dreams and give me an idea HALF as good as INCEPTION.”  That says a lot.

There are already a number of interesting theories out there concerning Inception.  Cinematical’s Peter Hall crafted a great post detailing six theories ranging from eerily plausible to head-scratchingly confusing.  And he also addresses five plot holes people seem to have noticed.  It’s a really cool read for anyone who’s seen the film and was perplexed or frustrated by the plot and (especially) the ending.  But WARNING: This article includes many, many spoilers, so if you don’t want to know key plot points beforehand (and I hope you don’t), wait until after you’ve seen the film to read it.

Review: Inception

You’ve watched the trailer.  You’ve sat through the TV spots and wondered, “What exactly is that about?”  You’ve asked your friends if they think it’ll be good.  You feel like you’ve seen that same scene with Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page sitting at an outdoor cafe as fruit stands and windows explode a million times.  And now it’s finally time to see it!  And the consensus?  It’s pretty darn cool.

Let me begin this review by stating how excited I am that a film has come out that’s founded on an original idea!  And it’s been much hyped and anticipated!  And (I predict) it will win big at the weekend box office!  Wait… am I dreaming?!

Well, that’s what the characters in Inception (2010) were doing for most of the film.  Christopher Nolan’s latest movie about a world in which dreams can be shared and ideas extracted or implanted is one hell of a wild, suave ride.  It’s suave because the characters float around hotel hallways in flawless suits and ski down dream mountains in perfect white parkas.  It’s wild because it takes the viewer in and swings them around a bit, through slow-motion sequences that would make The Matrix green with envy and dazzling special effects that actually enhance the narrative.  This film is noteworthy just for the pure entertainment value it delivers.  It’s really engrossing.  I would realize a simple conversation scene had been going on for several minutes, but because I was so wrapped up in the story, it had felt like mere seconds.  Kind of like the opposite of dream time.  That’s the other thing; you walk out of the theater unable to shake the complexities of this world Nolan has created.  I don’t know about everyone else, but for the rest of the day I just kept contemplating dream layers and limbo, totems and architects.  (I sound like a crazy person, but that’s probably the sign of having seen a good movie.  Or at least a really complex one.)  And that really is what a good movie will do.  It’ll make you think about it endlessly, not to necessarily spot plot holes, but to really try to comprehend the filmmaker’s vision.

And Nolan’s vision is huge.  The vastness of the film (and dream) space is staggering (even more so, I’m sure, on an IMAX screen, which I chose not to experience, to go easy on my eyes and my wallet).  Staircases lead on and on to nothing, mirrors reflect mirrors (much like the dreams within dream that form the backbone of the plot), and street blocks fold over onto each other like a burrito.  It’s exhilarating to watch.  And it’s not one of those effects-driven flicks where every scene features some advanced computer graphic.  This film isn’t trying to show off.  Okay, maybe it is a little bit.  But that’s okay, because it has a well-planned, well-executed story behind it.  And it’s just so cool!  I mean, the concept of painstakingly planning a high-stakes espionage mission just to plant an idea in someone’s head is mind-blowing.

And I think that’s why I enjoyed the action and thrill of Inception.  Ask anyone who knows me well enough and they’ll tell you that I’m not the biggest fan of big-budget movies where stuff blows up and the hero shoots a bunch of people.  But in this case, because the mission is so unexpected and the method so intelligent, it’s refreshing and you don’t have to feel guilty about watching the action.  It’s like James Bond for psychology majors — but more fun than that sounds.

While this film is original and succeeds in wowing its audience and staying entertaining from beginning to end, emotionally it didn’t have a huge effect on me.  While it makes a noble attempt at packing an emotional punch by highlighting the troubled history of DiCaprio’s character, Cobb, I never felt strongly enough for him.  And maybe it’s because the way of telling it is melodramatic.  Or maybe it’s because DiCaprio’s performance — and I hate to say this because I am such a fan — doesn’t really deliver the kind of emotions I wanted.  It seems like he’s at a stage in his career where all he wants to do is scowl and scream.  And that works for the most part.  But something about his performance in the quieter moments just didn’t resonate the way I so desperately wanted it to.  His intensity was appropriate for most of the film, but he didn’t pull back enough during the more intimate scenes.

But, hey, I’m not gonna bash a solid, fresh film because it didn’t make me cry.  I totally recommend Inception.  I think it lives up to the hype.  Will it get Oscar attention?  That’s a tough call.  On the one hand, it wouldn’t normally be on my short list of best picture contenders, but considering there are ten spots now, and the only film so far this year that I can imagine being nominated is Toy Story 3, it very well might be on the list.  And, you know, that’s okay, because Inception is just so cool.  Can I say that enough?  I really need to consult a thesaurus.