#so like there's way more suspension of disbelief in theatre. in movies it just doesn't work it looks Wrong

[jellicle-chants]

I've always wanted a CATS animated movie that depicts the characters as actual cats (rather than people in cat costumes), with either Don-Bluth-style traditional animation or more modern "hyper-realism" CGI. But I wonder if that would take the "theatre" appeal out of it for other people. What do you think?

I'll be honest, I've never really been in love with the idea of making CATS the musical an animated movie. I think the designs that exist from the proof of concept are cool, but there's also definitely reasons they struggled to take it past that stage. This is not to say that Eliot's poems could never be adapted into a children's animated movie, but I think making it specifically an adaptation of the stage show is what makes it iffy. I'll try to break it down more under the cut:

Problem A: at the end of the day, CATS is a dance show. A lot of the show is just dancing, and very involved dancing at that. What are you supposed to do with the 9 minute dance break from the Ball? It's too iconic to cut, and the non-anthropomorphic cats ironically don't have the articulation to pull off a lot of the dance moves. (I'm thinking of movies like The Aristocats for comparison, which really doesn't have the characters do much that actual cats physically couldn't. I guess if it were more like An American Tail it wouldn't be so jarring, but I'll get to that later.)

Problem B: CATS has too little plot for a traditionally structured movie. The 2019 version also ran into this problem, which of course it solved in the worst way conceivable, but it's still a problem. Movie and theatre audiences simply have different expectations, suspension of disbelief, etc. that CATS is too theatrical to cross over into. I think it would be really interesting to make a Fantasia-like movie with each of the poems/songs being a totally different short in an anthology, but I don't think that's what most people are imagining when they say they want an animated CATS movie.

Problem C: what do you do about humans? The cats of CATS live in a world clearly populated by humans, but they're never shown directly. Adding humans, to me at least, clearly poses a "power creep" problem: any adult human can easily overpower any cat, and also leans the movie towards a more plot-driven story (as I feel like a lot of animal movies with humans tend to have a human antagonist). On the other hand, you could just make the entire world be populated by cats, which would (mostly) solve the dancing problem. However, I feel like doing that misses the point of the original poems: to illustrate the different types of pet/stray cats. It's not as funny to imagine Skimbleshanks being in charge of a group of feline train workers (which could be a completely normal thing within talking-animal movies) than it is to imagine an entire train full of humans and the orange tabby cat who thinks he's in charge of all of them. The same goes for Bustopher Jones, Gus, Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer, etc., etc.

[sixty-silver-wishes]

Sideways on Youtube talks about this in some of his videos, but I'd also like to talk about it too. In order to work, the concept of theatre hinges on suspension of disbelief. You know those are actors on stage, and that the sets are painted and not really houses, but you let yourself ignore that in order to engage with the show. (It's a lot less weird when you remember those creepy, oddly sexual men in leg warmers and crazy hairdos are supposed to be cats, guys!) Musical theatre, ballet, and opera push this a step further; when the story is told through singing and/or dancing, most of the time, the characters aren't really singing and dancing in universe. There's the old adage in theatre- "when the emotion is too great to talk, you sing, and when it's too much for singing, you dance," and because theatre as a medium already employs suspension of disbelief, singing and/or dancing in musical theatre, ballet, and opera all are effective ways of conveying emotion. We, the audience, can believe that, in the world of the production we're watching, these characters are having an argument or proclaiming their love to each other in regular speech, but because we can suspend our disbelief about the singing and dancing just as we can suspend our disbelief on the sets and costumes and makeup, the performance can magnify those emotions and it will still feel logical to us.

You'll see the same elements in many silent films, too; as these films did not yet have sound, actors also relied on more exaggerated gestures and facial expressions in order to make up for a lack of vocal inflections and tones on screen. While the medium of film allows us to see close-ups of their faces, unlike theatre, this lack of sound means the acting must be more fantastical. If you were to take a silent film and adapt it using the same script and acting techniques into a live-action sound film, it would probably look ridiculous. Modern filming technology and acting techniques also allow for less suspension of disbelief, as there is more of a call for realism and "believability" in cinema.

There's an awkward disconnect between the acting that is required for theatre and the acting required for sound films, which is why it's so hard for me to enjoy movies like, for instance, the film adaptation of "Sweeney Todd," although the original musical is one of my favorites of all time. "Sweeney Todd," like in many other musicals, portrays a wide amount of emotions through song, and balances humor, tragedy, and horror- sometimes all at once. But when Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are on screen as Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett, their performances are far more toned down than, say, George Hearn and Angela Lansbury's, because they're not on stage; they're on screen. If Johnny Depp were filmed running around the street singing "Epiphany" with all the passion and fury of Hearn's Sweeney, breaking the fourth wall and demanding at the camera that the audience come in for a shave, even if he gave the best performance of his life, it would likely look more silly than frightening, because we the audience wouldn't be convinced of his performance in the same way that we would of a stage actor. Hearn's Sweeney is- to me- far more terrifying and memorable than Depp's, and part of that is because Hearn was working with the medium of theatre and not film; it allowed him to- while singing a rhyming musical theatre number- push his emotions to a convincing limit that modern film techniques likely could not. Depp's Sweeney, on the other hand, must be more subdued while singing; he's angry, sure, but he doesn't communicate the same level of emotion because of the medium he's working with. And while Burton attempts to remedy the fourth wall break by having Depp threaten unresponsive extras, it doesn't hold a candle to Hearn with his maniacal eyes, stepping down from the stage and pointing his razor directly at the audience (hell, when I saw "Sweeney" starring Josh Groban, my friend and I were sitting close to the stage, and I was a bit nervous he'd point at me!).

Now that my Sweeney Todd tangent is finally over, let's talk about what suspension of disbelief means for animation. Animated films work well as musicals, because they also require suspension of disbelief. We know those are just moving pictures, and perhaps excluding people in costume, we'll never encounter Mickey Mouse walking down the street (and thank God for that!). Exaggeration, like in theatre and early film, is frequently employed in animation, because animation isn't limited by the bounds of reality. Even 3D animation restricts the suspension of disbelief more than 2D, because that third dimension is a constant in our reality; you can still stylize 3D animation of course, but not to the extent that you can with 2D. (Side note: Stop motion lies in a weird uncanny valley, which is often used to great effect. If I had the budget and resources to apply my "Caligari" adaptive screenplay to a full film any way I wanted, I would use stop motion due to this.) "Realistic" 3D animation like we see with Lion King 2019, on the other hand, allows for little to no stylization because it's so close to reality; it becomes difficult to suspend disbelief when this medium is utilized, and when it's applied to mediums that require suspension of disbelief like stylized animation and musicals, it doesn't go well.

one day i'll make a video essay about how the disney live action remakes undermine both animation and musical theater as art forms and storytelling mediums

[halogenwarrior]

Thinking about different forms of media and adaptation, and how when I was a kid if there was a book I like I would be like "MOVIE NOW and let it be accurate", but now I really feel that an adaptation is only good if you believe the adaptation will have some advantage over the original, be able to tell the story better (or at least in some ways better, even if it's worse in other ways). So I tried to make an inventory of the advantages and disadvantages of different media.

Book: Allows you to explore the interiority of characters in a way that no other media does with unique narrative voices, and gives you the option to do this with all/most characters or tell the story completely through the lens of a single one. Also allows for the option of an omniscient narrator with "personality", which can create the comforting, involving experience of a story being told to you or allow for depths of satirical/comic commentary that other media wouldn't allow - but in terms of comedy coming from the actual events of the story, dialogue, etc., it's harder to get a laugh when you don't have things said out loud with good timing. Aesthetically, good writing can invoke an atmosphere and even be "philosophical" in a unique way other media cannot, and can increase the involvement and emotional impact. The flip side of this is that bad prose can make the experience WORSE than if it was a non-prose related media altogether, and even with good description there is less of a sense of what things look like than in visual media.

Movie/live-action TV:

The existence of real people on screen can make this media feel more viscerally real and more relatable to some people, making it good for stories where you want to underscore how "raw" it feels - like a story of war showing its horrors, where just having it written or done in stylized animation can lack that impact (and this goes double if it's on the big screen in the theatre, hearing the loud noises etc.). It's also great for comedy due to being a visual medium with the potential for timing. However interiority is hard to do, resulting in characters potentially losing some of the complexity and interestingness they could have if you saw inside their heads, and even making some characters' actions make no sense when you want them to make sense, without an ability to see what they are thinking. This could be a positive, though, if you want your protagonist to be someone whose motives remain mysterious and wish for more subtle storytelling, with the shots and their acting cues, than just saying their thoughts outright, and subtlety can sometimes make things more powerful. A book can imitate this, but it would require doing something like making the POV character not the protagonist, which could lead to a boring character no one wants to follow around as the POV if done wrong. Also, the episodic nature of a TV show that doesn't have to be binged, unlike a book which has chapters shortly following one another, can allow for the option of episodic storytelling which only slowly if at all gets to the main plot while being able to "stealth in" character development, which might come across as more meaningful when we get to know these characters in varying situations and across their daily lives rather than being pressured to deal with a plot. Another disadvantage is that, due to the limitations of CGI and the contrast with real people, fantastic/sci-fi elements and action scenes can come off as silly and undercutting suspension of disbelief, and in general anything less realistic and more stylized can be jarring. Also, a live-action show or movie can be dull or boring aesthetically - the best it can do is visually show a location, which lacks all the other senses that makes it feel like you are actually there, and while there is music it is usually not used too heavily the way it is in a video game; the immersion and "character" to the world seen with books, animated shows, and video games is less there, making it have to rely more on the strength of character interactions.

Animated series (cartoon/anime/animated movie etc.):

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of live-action TV still remain here (episodic storytelling, comedy potential, lack of explicit interiority), but it trades off the inherent visceral realism that can make things more impactful in favor of a stronger control of aesthetic. This also allows for peculiarities of character design, which combined with the exaggerations of expression can make characters have more "character" than in live action or a book - a character can be more endearing and pleasant to watch when their particular mannerisms are highlighted, and the design allows you to hint at characterization and intrigue the audience before they even know the character well. There's a reason animated characters are often the ones people obsess over. However, this at its worst can be oversimplifying the world and applying harmful tropes that hinder its applicability to the real world - i.e "ugly = evil", people looking a certain way always being a certain way, or just generally the exaggerated expressions making the story more simplistic and lack interesting subtlety. Animated media are also good for action, allowing stylized fights and displays of abilities that are awesome to watch without breaking suspension of disbelief, in contrast to the awkwardness of keeping track of a fight scene in a book and the silliness and lack of beauty that might occur in live action.

Video game:

Has an advantage in emotional involvement and attachment to characters, as the player having control creates a feeling of personal camaraderie with the characters, allowing for fantasized friendship and romance, and the perils characters face feeling more real. The ability to use background music to a stronger extent than a movie or a TV series heightens emotional appeal even more, and aesthetically a video game can really immerse you in a world. Like animated series (if not to the same extent) it can do action well, but like TV and movies, it can suffer or occasionally benefit from a lack of internal monologue. The interactive nature of the media also allows for player choice, which other media would have difficulty with; this can allow a video game to better explore philosophical themes and moral dilemmas that actually allow the player to act on their contemplations rather than being fed an answer or only forced to watch others choose. It also allows for the option of environmental storytelling. However, the requirement of a gameplay portion can make an otherwise strong story be awkward and, if done badly, seem like it's a story with forced breaks to do a chore. It also it usually restricted to telling simpler stories than other media due to the gameplay cutting the storytelling time. The method of gameplay can also sometimes clash with the themes of the story; infamously, it can be hard to intelligently explore themes of violence when the gameplay requires violence to be done often, casually, and with no reflection, and even seeing how a world functions with so much violence can break one's suspension of disbelief (though not all games have to involve fighting).

Play/Musical/Opera:

The price and lack of people who would see serialized plays forces these into relatively simple stories (which can especially be a problem if you are adapting real history, where you would lose a lot from sanding over the complexity), and the relative bareness of the stage forces them into character focus rather than complex worlds and aesthetics. However, the very bareness of the stage allows for a more abstract, thematic story than the awkward focus on realism of a live screen, being ideal for "brain in a jar" type character interaction drama. Like live action TV/movies, the use of real people can work well with more subtle storytelling, though unlike those media it can more easily shift to the same internal monologues that books contain if it needs to, allowing it to have the best of both worlds. Musicals and opera trade even more of the already limited potential for length and complexity of the story (due to singing taking longer than talking) for the extremely heightened emotional impact that comes with music, creating what can be a grand spectacle as if from another world and going well with tragic stories, and the details of the music/music theory allows for another dimension of storytelling and characterization. Like animated series, this can come at the cost of seeming silly and hard to take seriously to some people.

There are also comics/manga and podcasts, but I'm not sure I know enough about them to go over their advantages and disadvantages (comics just seem to me like "animated series but worse", except for maybe some potential for internal monologue, but I'm not an expert on them at all).

[galmiahthepigeon]

If I don't look at the DEH movie then it doesn't exist. So happy to live in a world where it stayed as a stage play.

[extra-9-minutes]

I have been shouting this for years but they need to stop putting so much focus on doing film adaptations, LOOKING AT YOU WICKED MOVIE, and start professionally filming more live productions. Hamilton proved it can be done extremely well and people will absolutely watch it. There are so many reasons to 1. You preserve a version with the original cast. Tour casts are great but let's be honest almost nothing beats the original because that's what the director truly envisioned. 2. You don't lose anything about the show like you do with turning it into a movie. Suspension of disbelief is far higher for a stage production than it is in film. 3. shows aren't lost to time 4. Most importantly it becomes 100% more accessible. Art is not meant to be experienced in one way. There will always be people going to live shows. Everytime I get the chance I'd rather go to a live show of course. But when I can't I'll gladly take a live film recording. I've gotten to see the original cast of Into The Woods with the iconic Bernadette Peterson because a filmed version which was performed probably before I was born. I have access to that now because of that recording. I didn't have to miss great art just because it happened before my time. So many other people will never get to see a show so long as it's not accessible for a myriad of reasons and I know that's why some people fight against it is because they want to keep theatre "pure" which usually means full of privileged elite and none of the "common folk" but fuck that. Allowing people who otherwise wouldn't have access to a show to be able to experience it does not fundamentally change what the experience is like. It just doesn't. You're being a pretentious gatekeeper if you're gonna say that going to a show live is the only way and some people just have to miss things. Theatre changes lives and everyone should have a chance to have that moment.

Justin McElroy talking about accessibility in live theatre (June 9, 2019)