Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/20/20 in Posts

  1. 6 points
    As a musical theatre actor and someone who went to school for musical theatre I wanna point out two things. 1. Andrew Lloyd Webber set a book of poems by TS Elliot to music so most of the lyrics are not his at all. That is why there is no story because it was originally just going to be a song cycle of poems set to music that eventually became a show. 2. I think it’s important to point out that Cats is more of a dance show than it is a singing show. This is why it doesn’t work as well in a movie platform. The real power of the show comes from the incredible dancers on stage dancing and doing great physical work and tricks and that is what makes it so compelling in person. That does not translate well when the whole movie is being done with motion capture. I you think of the show more in the sense of a cirque show that has always been more the vibes to me. More about the spectacle less about the over all story telling.
  2. 5 points
  3. 5 points
  4. 4 points
    Not sure, but I think this means he's a Pokemon.
  5. 4 points
    Correction: Jason says Victoria is played by Cynthia Erivo and Paul says yes. She is not. The actress is Francesca Hayward, who is a ballet dancer. And I feel bad for her because this was supposed to be her big film debut and they barely even have her dance. Here she is starring in the Nutcracker.
  6. 4 points
    The term jellicle comes from the T.S. Eliot poems (and he can go fuck himself). There is CATS fandom controversy over its origins. I quote the sources from a Cats wiki. Playbill: The National Theatre Magazine, April 30, 1991. Quote: "Eliot heard this word [Jellicle] from his young niece, who sounded as if she were saying "Jellicle cat" whenever she called for her "dear little cat" and "Pollicle dog" whenever she called for her "poor little puppy." The Letters of T. S. Eliot Volume 7: 1934–1935. Faber & Faber, May 30, 2017. Quote: "TSE's secretary replied, 25 June 1959: 'Mr Eliot has asked me to write and say that he does not wish to copyright the word "jellicle" and is quite content that it should be used without acknowledgement, so long as its use conforms to the definition of Jellicle Cats given in his poem about them. And jellicle, by the way, is not a diminutive of "angelical" but is a diminutive of "Jellylorum" which was the name of a cat of that description which Mr Eliot once owned.'" The movie has Judi Dench say “dear little cat” so they are siding with the Playbill explanation. But I think it’s bullshit because even if you do a crazy British accent with a lisp I still can’t get from dear little to jellicle. I think Eliot just used his own cat’s nickname. But I tend to think this because I do not like these poems and think it’s all dumb and people pretend all his poems are great because they had to read PRUFROCK in school. Eta I agree with Cameron’s theory about self actualization in the context of the film and, probably the musical. I haven’t seen it. But I also think the film and the musical give this weird word significance just because it came from the pen of a Pulitzer Prize winner. And it’s just s stupid thing.
  7. 3 points
  8. 3 points
    I am really excited to talk about this. The commercial for CATS used to terrify me as a child. Then when the movie came out I paid $20 (!) for it. Why? Because I knew HDTGM would cover it. (And actually, in hindsight, I think the makeup and costumes that scared me so much as a kid were a plus for the musical. Because if you went, at least you knew they put that amount of effort into it.) Then I managed to actually miss the live stream. The PFT opening made me happy. Too bad he wasn’t there for the livestream either. I want to talk about Ian Mckellen. I saw an interview with him when they asked him about the cat school. I believe it was Stephen Colbert. Because apparently the actors had to go learn the cat movement, which Paul mentions. And McKellen straight up was like “oh I didn’t go to that. I’m Ian McKellen.” I would bet June’s feeling that it came and went is because some actors did not go. And when I watched the film, he and Jennifer Hudson were my faves. Hudson is obviously for her singing. McKellen isn’t a great singer. But I still liked watching him. I would posit that the “cat school” made people worse. Interesting when Jason says he thought kids invented Cats, because it is based on children’s poems by TS Eliot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Possum's_Book_of_Practical_Cats It is what an adult thinks kids want.
  9. 3 points
    I might need to leave. I went to this Wikipedia article. It made me sad for penguins. But then I thought, “hey do cats rape (like dolphins do because I never miss a chance to tell people with dumb dolphin tattoos or jewelry that dolphins are known rapists. See Jaws 3) Cats are not listed among the animals, in case you DON’T want to bum yourself out by learning about animal rape. Then the next thing I thought was: if Macavity did rape Grizabella, did he shout “Macavity!” as he came. i will show myself out.
  10. 3 points
    Prostitution is unknown in cats but not strictly limited to humans. But I think a lot of this is humans interpreting animal behavior in human terms and the study on Capuchin monkeys specifically involves human intervention. So, saying it's natural or how these animals behave isn't necessarily accurate in my mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals?wprov=sfla1 I never really thought of these as cats either. It's humans writing cats and humans putting personality into cats that aren't there (which is true of all pet owners but that's an entirely different discussion). The cats are wearing clothes, and singing and dancing and a leader cat sends them to heaven for reincarnation. These aren't cats or, at the very least, ascribing human behaviors to them is totally fine for this movie because the writers already did. Not to say I necessarily thought Macavity was her pimp (as I couldn't follow this at all) but I definitely thought it was more than she was just down and out
  11. 3 points
  12. 3 points
  13. 3 points
    Look I know the scale of the cats has been talked about to death but the main issue I had with scale were the cockroaches and mice. The average mouse's body is 95 to 120 mm in length and from the band scene we can see that they are roughly two matches tall. The average match is 40 mm so this checks out so far. Meanwhile the roaches are about the size of two strawberries. Strawberries come in a variety of sizes but I'd argue that an average store bought strawberry and a match stick are roughly the same size with a strawberry being a tad smaller. Which means that mice and roaches would be roughly of equal size. That means these cockroaches are also in the 95 to 120 range. The world's largest cockroach, the megaloblatta of central America, can grow up to 97 mm meaning these are indeed terrifyingly large cockroaches. However, if we want to take this a step further we can extrapolate some information as to the size of these cats. The cats interact with the mice and roaches and pick them up. When they are holding the roaches they are the about the length of the cat's fingers. Your middle finger is approximately the length of your palm, so the cat's hands are approximately double that of the mice and roaches, putting them in 190 mm to 240 mm range. Studies have shown that our body is made up of many ratios that tend to be consistent. One is that your height is about nine times that the size of your hand. So take those numbers and doing a little math show that these cats are 1.71 m 2.16m tall. Given that that roaches were slightly smaller than the mice let's focus on the lower end of the spectrum and say that these cats are 1,71 m tall which is the mean height for adult men globally. These are indeed human sized cats.
  14. 3 points
    I'm a classic guy so I'd just go with your standard "Yoink"
  15. 3 points
    Well, how would you do it?
  16. 3 points
    I'm sorry but is nobody going to address how McCavity shouts his own name when he disappears people?!?!
  17. 3 points
    I hate to disagree with you, forum Paul. But I do think that is a logical conclusion based solely on the film. Sure the poems are for kids and it’s a family musical, but in the FILM the cats are weirdly sexualized. And the Taylor Swift song , if I recall correctly, has catnip and it is sort of implied she is bewitching them. I don’t know. I got the impression she was once like the Taylor Swift cat and then she sort of fell into prostitution. Why else is she out on the STREET? She became a streetwalker! I don’t think Andrew Lloyd Webber would say she’s a sex worker... but, again, the movie is weirdly sexual in a way that I don’t like. And that is what I thought she was as well until I fell down the poetry rabbit hole (still mad at T.S. Eliot).
  18. 3 points
    Well this episode and this forum has really fucked with my browser algorithm as this is the link that was recommended to me when I opened a new tab. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-cats-show-you-their-butt-according-to-science?utm_source=pocket-newtab
  19. 3 points
    I'm not sure that this was mentioned in the episode but -- there actually is a Heaviside Layer. The Kennelly-Heaviside Layer, to be exact. Apparently this layer is reflective of radio waves, and bouncing these waves off the sky makes it possible for them to reach beyond the horizon. I suppose this could mean that sending a Jellicle to the Heaviside Layer for a new life could literally mean just sending them into the stratosphere so that they'll land somewhere far away, thereby beginning a "new" life? The layer was discovered by British physicists in the 1920s, which is around the time Eliot started writing poetry, so odds are this was a word he overheard at a tea party sometime, and 20 years later, he used it in his cat poems. EDIT TO ADD: the dumbest thing about this is that it was named for the guy who discovered it -- Oliver Heaviside.
  20. 3 points
    I'll admit that I like "Prufrock" -- not because it's a particularly great poem, which it isn't, but because that post-war nihilistic stuff is what I most enjoy reading. It's basically the only thing Eliot wrote that I ever enjoyed reading ("Wasteland"? More like "waste" of time, amirite?). I put Eliot in the same category as Matthew Arnold -- their poems are pretentious and melodramatic and pedantic because they're critics on top of being poets, so all their work has the air of self-gratification and certainty in how brilliant they are. Their poems are so much "uncontainable expression of self" and more "flexing what I know about good poetry." Eliot reminds me of what I remember someone saying about Axl Rose during the Use Your Illusion records -- every song has to do everything that that Axl Rose knows how to do as a musician, just to show that he knows about great music.
  21. 3 points
    I tend to agree. I think, because of Eliot’s erudition and the density and scope of the allusions found in his work, that there’s a bit of literary FOMO - now and from his contemporaries. I always felt, particularly in college, there was a fear that if you admitted that you didn’t like him, you were opening yourself to accusations of “not getting it” regardless of whether or not your criticisms had any merit. (Personally, I’m more of an e e cummings man.) But, yeah, with these inviolable literary genius types, there always tends to be a move to over analyze their work — even when all signs point to it just being something they threw together on a lazy afternoon.
  22. 3 points
    There was a lot of confusion about what Cats is supposed to be about, but per the great theater director Harold Prince, Andrew Lloyd Webber already told us what it's about. It's about cats.
  23. 3 points
    Did I hear Paul say it was “jellicle cats and police dogs”? T.S. Elliot used the terms “Jellicle cats and Pollicle dogs”. He came up with these names because that’s what it sounded like when his niece kept trying to say "dear little cat" and "poor little dog".
  24. 3 points
    I've never left any comments, though I've been a listener for years. I have to say, this Cats episode is one of the best Paul, June, & Jason have ever done. Part of this is the source material and the contempt it breeds-- I watched Cats with a Discord group at the beginning of the lockdown and my attention span died within five minutes and never recovered-- but part of this is due to the agitation and anxiety of doing having virtual discussion of a baffling and craptastic movie (and cat-tastic 'classic' musical). Jason seems on edge, and you know what? I feel ya friend. It's hard not to be on edge. Who wants jellicle b.s. with the isolation and the awful feeling one gets checking the news? T.S. Eliot wrote silly cat poems, Andrew Lloyd Webber adapted them into a stubborn and tiring musical, we were all subjected to a tiresome film adaptation with CGI-negated genitals, and we're all enjoying a collective sigh of relief-- from Cats and a very un-musical year. Thanks guys! Love this podcast and am really enjoying this discussion as I telework and process endless paperwork. Hang in there, and thanks for the collective, cathartic "Fuck Cats!"
  25. 3 points
    Ok HDTGM family.... I'm not crazy right?! Sir Ian was totally conjuring Gandalf for this moment. Audio here: https://i.imgur.com/qxugj6e.mp4
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-08:00
×