Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Elektra Boogaloo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    987

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Posts posted by Elektra Boogaloo

  1. Posted

    14 minutes ago, RyanSz said:

    As an English major who is not a fan of the Shakespeare's comedies (I'm a tragedies fan), I've definitely had my fill of the guys plays, but apparently not Branagh who I honestly think wishes he was born in Shakespeare's time just so that he could have had a chance to work with the guy. That's not to say the work he puts out is bad, but he's very much the actor that Alan Rickman was lampooning in Galaxy Quest, who would do a mainstream series like Harry Potter or Jack Ryan, all while bemoaning the fact that he was doing so given that he was a classically trained actor. The fact that he's now apparently moved onto Agatha Christie's bibliography, I can only imagine the ideas he has running through his head in order to keep that mustache and accent going.

    I am history plays girl. 

    In defense of Branagh (and again I am team Emma Thompson. He cheated on her), he has done commercial blockbuster stuff. Not just Potter, but directing “Thor, “ “Cinderella,” and “Artemis Fowl.” What is interesting is that he didn’t put himself as an actor in those movies, although he does a voice in AVENGERS INFINITY WAR,

     

    eta: oh wait I think that is the point you we’re making. He directed jack ryan too??? I didn’t know that. I read this too fast.  Move along. 

    • Like 2

  2. Posted

    Ps while we are on the subject of Shakespeare being for common folk, I think maybe one thing that doesn’t work for me about this is that he’s comparing it to great musicals and great movies. Not that Shakespeare isn’t great. But show love to “low brow” popcorn movies instead. I would’ve preferred less Casablanca and more Marx Brothers, I think? 

    Branagh picked brilliant movies. Brilliant songs. And was like together this will all be brilliant! But WHY

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Bridget R said:

    I watched a DVD version and looked at the behind-the-scenes featurette afterward. In it, Brannagh says (I'm paraphrasing) that he decided to be in the cast so that the other actors would agree to be in it. Hubris, indeed. 

    On the whole, I do like his work - just not in this film.

    Amazing. I totally get why he would want to be in the movie and even Miramax wanting him in the movie. 

    But the idea that he had to be THIS PART for the actors to agree to it? He already was directing it. He thinks Matthew Lillard would’ve been like, “nah, dawg, I get Shakespeare offers all the time, bro... OH I GET TO PRETEND TO BE YOUR BRO? Sign me up!l”

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    6 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Forï»ż me, Love's Labour's Lost makes sense in the overall scope of what Branagh was doing at the time. It was mentioned in the episode, that Branagh thought of himself as "the guy" to update Shakespeare for this generation. The idea was to make Shakespeaï»żre's plays more accessible to your average viewer, that they weren't just dusty old words in a text book, but vibrant stories that encapsulated a full range of genres. Branagh was pointing out that Shakespeare wasn't writing for the educated elite, but for the commoners. He was making commercial entertainment for the masses that had more in common with Michael Bay, Nora Ephron, and Mel Brooks than Ingmar Bergman.ï»żï»ż

    Ha this was the thesis of my paper on Shakespearean adaptations from college. But I didn’t use this one. I think the fact that you accept Branagh in this role is why you are forum Paul. You are the trusting one. Your brain made it work. The rest of us are more skeptical.

    Because I find it upsetting. 

    I mean, it’s not the worst movie done on this show. I think this writer guy, Shakespier?, seems pretty talented. 

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    One thing I think about whenever Kenneth Branagh is mentioned is one of my college professors (English major) said he just played himself in “Harry Potter.” Gilderoy Lockhart steals other people’s work to become famous and is totally full of himself. While I think he does have some good adaptations of Shakespeare, and he is a talented actor. I do think there is an element of hubris to his body of work that is Lockhartian. 

     

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    Interesting. I have never seen this version of Love Labour’s Lost even though, as an English major I wrote a paper on modern adaptations of Shakespeare around this time. Mostly because it’s not my fave Shakespeare play. And also, though I know nothing of the circumstances of their split, I took Emma Thompson’s side in her divorce from Branagh. Because she is objectively better.

    eta: instincts confirmed. I googled it. He had an affair. 

    • Like 4

  7. Posted

    7 hours ago, Meredeath said:

    Skimbleshanksï»żï»ż isï»ż the best cat because ï»żhe has actually has a ï»żjoï»żï»żï»żbï»żï»ż

    Sure. 

    Quote

    To this dayï»ż, we blame Covid-19 not on illegal pangolin-trade, but Cats.ï»żï»ż

    I also buy this. 

    You all make excellent points. 

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    37 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    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

    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.

    • Like 2
    • Hedgehog 1

  12. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I have to respectfully disagree, forum June. While I agree some of the cats are sexualized, and there are certainly hints of promiscuity (Rum Tum Tugger and Taylor Swift’s cats, for sure), I would argue that Grizebella is one of the only cats that isn’t sexualized. And, I have to stress, an assumption that McCavity is her pimp feels patently absurd. I don’t believe they even share a single scene together! 

    I just don’t see any evidence of prostitution. I’m not even sure what would be exchanged for sexual favors. Cat treats? Is it coded in a language that I just don’t understand? I guess I need something more solid then, “She just comes off as a sex worker.”

    I think it’s exactly as it says on the tin. Just like they have literal railroad cats and literal barge cats, she was literally a glamorous cat. I think her tragedy is far more universal. It’s essentially, “I used to be amazing, but things went bad, and now everyone’s forgotten about me. So much so, that, even to myself, I am completely unrecognizable as the being I once was.”

    I think a more apt parallel for Grizebella would be aging actress - which, to me, makes a lot of sense for a stage production. In her heyday, she used to be center stage, but despite her obvious talent, she got pushed further and further to the wings, until one day, her agents just stopped calling altogether. This is why she gets the big number at the center of the movie. She’s saying, “Look at me! I still have worth! I’m more than just the pretty face I used to be!”

    Again, there’s nothing wrong with it if she is supposed to be a sex worker, but to make a superficial assumption based on, I guess, how the character looks, without further evidence to back that up, feels fraught to me. Not to mention that it seems to completely miss the point of the character.

    I have been thinking about WHY I thought this for awhile now. And I don’t know what to say. Maybe it just says more about me (and Paul!) than anything else. There is the line that she went off with Macavity, that is what happened to her. And I don’t know why I interpret that to mean he was her pimp and not just that  he was abusive or stole all her stuff or any other scenario. 

    I guess the world seems so dark and it seemed like she was out on the street waiting for someone to come pick her up. I thought that was what she was doing. And everyone was like, “oh there she is on her corner again.” 

    What’s weird, and what I have been thinking about it since you brought it up, is that there shouldn’t be prostitution in a Cat world. That is a human vice. So maybe it just says I was never convinced they were actually cats is the problem. But I don’t know, maybe if the world felt more silly and joyful (and I have seen clips of the stage show that seem that way) then my brain wouldn’t have gone there. 

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    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.

     

    • Like 4

  14. Posted

    18 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I’m not sure we should just breeze right past the fact that Paul referred to Grizabella the Glamour Cat as...the “sex worker” cat?!?

    The cats in the movie are supposed to represent real cat personalities, traits, and behavior. For example, Rum Tum Tugger is supposed to evoke a horny alley cat, while Mungojerry and Rumpleteezer represent the more mischievous nature of cats. Even the more fantastical cats like Mr Mephistopheles, represent cats who do amazing, seemingly magical things. You know what cats aren’t known for? Sex work. I’m...not even sure what that would even be.

    Basically, Grizebella is a cat who was once beautiful and pampered. She had a cushy life, but has since fell on hard times. She would have been a cat you’d put in a competition or something. And while it’s never mentioned explicitly, I believe the audience is supposed to come to the conclusion that, as she grew older and her beauty began to fade, she was abandoned by her owners. This leaves her in a decidedly un-jellicle existential dilemma. What happens to you when you can no longer be the thing you were born to be? Not only that, what happens when you lose your entire support system when you learn that the love you thought you had turns out to be superficial and conditional?

    The song “Memories” is Grizebella remembering the good life she used to have, wishing she could go back there, accepting that she can’t, and trying to find the courage to carry on.

    So, while there is certainly nothing wrong with sex work as a profession, no, Grizebella is not meant to represent a “sex worker cat.”

    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). 

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    9 hours ago, Brooklyndix said:

    2ï»ż. I think it’s important to point out that Cats is more of a dance show than it is a singing show. Tï»żhis 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.Â Â ï»ż

    I haven’t seen it, only the commercials. But the dancing and spectacle always seemed like the draw of CATS, not the story. In the film they cast the ballerina as the main cat but then you never really get to see her do what I assume she can do. You just never got a cool dance sequence. Did they not have a choreographer or something? It was very flat. 

    And, as June mentioned, they danced down the aisles and came out at the audience. 

    There is nothing about the film that POPS that way. 

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    12 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I’m still listening, so maybe they get to it, but here’s what a jellicle cat is:

    A jellicle cat is a cat who is destined to fulfill a specific purpose - railroad cat, theater cat, kitchen cat, etc. Even Macavity fulfills a role as an evil cat. To put that in human terms, Paul Scheer is a human being. Paul Scheer the human has free will and can be anything he chooses to be, but the “jellicle” version of Paul Scheer might be be Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer. In other words, that identity is the fulfillment of his birth.

    Essentially, the cats are striving for self-actualization and eventual reincarnation.  To use Paul as an example again, “Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer” might be his jellicle identity, but to qualify for the Heavyside Layer, Paul would have to be the BEST Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer he can be. Note: this doesn’t mean he has to be the best actor/comedian out of all actor/comedians, but the best actor/comedian *Paul Scheer* he can be. If you were to put it in Buddhist terms (which you 100% should), the Heavyside Layer would be like attaining Nirvana, and being a jellicle would be the equivalent of a bodhisattva - in other words, the step just before full enlightenment.

    As for the plot, Victoria is an abandoned kitten. She is young and is just learning the nature of cats. She learns that on that particular night, one cat will be chosen for reincarnation as a reward for being the fullest expression of their specific cat type. Macavity, a bad cat, is up for reincarnation as well, because he is the fullest embodiment an evil cat. Macavity kidnaps all his competition, so when the choice is made, he will be the only option available. Eventually, the other nominees are freed, Macavity is stopped, and the Grizabella the Glamour cat is chosen - proving that, ultimately, its more about who you are on the inside rather than what you are on the outside. At the end, Dench tells Victoria that she too might one day become a jellicle cat - presumably a cat of love and kindness, as it is through her heart that the others are finally able to see the Grizabella for what she truly is.

    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. 

    • Like 4

  17. Posted

    Quote

    On the first ever live-streamed HDTGM episode, Paul, June, and Jason discuss the 2019 musical Cats. They talk about what exactly is a “Jellicle,” naked cats, magic, the existence of the butthole cut, and much more. Plus, some very special guests share their thoughts on the movie!

     

    Listen to the Transformers For Charity episode over at https://www.hdtgminfo.com/

    Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson here: http://www.earwolf.com/show/unspooled/

    Check out The Jane Club over at www.janeclub.com

    Check out new HDTGM merch over at https://www.teepubli
wdidthisgetmade

    Where to Find Jason, June & Paul:

    @PaulScheer on Instagram & Twitter

    @Junediane on IG and @MsJuneDiane on Twitter

    Jason is Not on Twitter

    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. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  18. Posted

    Okay, if they did “Oh Hello” Jumanji crossover I would be very happy. Because I loved the first Jumanji, mostly because of Jack Black. 

    And Jack Black has to be—mostly—the Black football player that Kevin Hart played in #1 in the second and I was NERVOUS. Because that could get racist real fast. And I was like, “oh he is actually better at it than Kevin Hart was” (because Kevin Hart was really just doing himself). 

    But I was mad because I thought his character in Jumanji 1, Madison, was the real character that had the strongest arc and saved Joe Jonas and I was happy. And she is BARELY in 2. So I was pissed. Like I had to listen to the Rock do this weird Jewish stereotype voice (DeVito isn’t Jewish, is he?) and I didn’t get to see her at all. 

    The Rock and Hart clearly think they are funny but they... shouldn’t be allowed. 

    Karen Gillan does get fight the Hound (from Game of Thrones) with nunchucks which is kinda fun but I wish she got to kill Thanos instead. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Congratulations @Elektra Boogaloo! Well deserved win! 😜

    Well thank you, all and Paul. I did not expect to win because I contributed nothing to the discussion. But I also win nothing so that’s fair. 

    I just listened to this after my one year post surgery cancer check up. So I did tear up which is possibly not related to my winning nothing but more because I also just got a call that all the tests and blood work came back normal. Yay me. 

    • Like 10

  21. Posted

    On 10/9/2020 at 4:50 PM, gigi-tastic said:

    I just want it known I will pay double for a book with purple paper? Also this now makes me think of that scene in Legally Blonde with Else's resume which is pink and scented!

    He should have been a scent instead of a symbol when he was fighting with his record company! Then he could hand you purple scented paper and you’d know... it’s HIM. 

     

    Also, argh. I am mad I missed the CATS live show. I paid $20 for that when it was released. 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    I sort of have a Prince story.  Not sure if I should tell it but I will, you guys just be cool. 

    I used to work at a book publisher and we did a book with him. And the contracts person told me that his reps asked that the book contract be printed on purple paper. She said she didn’t have any and I was like, you better get some. But I think she told them no. 

    And this makes me sad. Especially since he died. Like was it too much to go to Office Max and get some colored paper? I bet I would have made the end of his life better.

    • Like 6

  25. Posted

    Sorry for the double post earlier. 

    I wanted to let youn know that Google Lens identifies the “hard pink” hat  as this one and sends you to Walmart. $14.95 Walmart misidentified the color as “hot” pink, sadly. 

    Now, I had melanoma and the doctor suggested I wear more hats/layers.   You need to protect yourself from UV radiation every day, and maybe I don’t want to bathe in chemical sunscreen each morning. 

    Anyway, hats can be difficult to pull off. I do have a blush Panama hat and my sister called it a fedora once and I haven’t worn it since. There is a real stigma to a fedora. As, @grudlian. points out, this one isn’t a fedora either (trilby hats are usually made of inferior material to fedoras, and that one looks very cheap. Not going to give you good UPF at all.)  So Not is it a hard pink, it’s also a hard (as in difficult) hat. 

    It was a real choice. And wearing it inside? Why? Imagine sitting behind her in class. 

     

    • Like 5
×