We, The Infected

Bloody Disgusting has a post about revisiting the Cat Scene from LTROI. In it the poster makes an contetion about the cat scene that I think is mostly a straw man to foster discussion. For some reason, I can't get my Disqus login working, so instead I'm giving them a link-back and I'm posting my response here.

I don't think that the Cat Scene was intended to be funny. In the audio commentary track on the UK DVD the director (Tomas Alfredson) says, "And if you are planning to be a director in the future I would strongly recommend you not to create situations where you have to direct cats." I myself don't think the scene is really bad, except - as you alluded to in your post - in comparison to the rest of the film. However, being a mediocre scene in a film chocked full of superlative scenes is a tough row to hoe.

I think that if the scene hadn't been absolutely essential to the plot, Tomas would not have attempted it. This scene is important to the plot because it shows how quickly and utterly the craving for blood was stripping Virginia of her humanity. She was going to that apartment to kill Gösta for his blood. She knew him, knew that he lived alone, and hadn't particularly liked him. I think that what you're supposed to notice in that scene is how Virginia now has just one priority that trumps almost all of her previous values. This will help you to understand her decision later to end her own life, which in turn could cause you to have have confused feelings about Eli. Why doesn't he do the same? Should you really hope that a child would end his own life? Even if the child is monster? It also makes you wonder about Eli. Why has he not killed Oskar? How does he have more restraint than Virginia? Is this what Eli's life is like?

Tomas goes to great lengths to try to balance the characters and the audience's feelings for them, and this is the only scene that could balance our sympathy for Virginia. I think that Tomas did not intend for us to laugh - or at least not much and certainly not all the way through. He wanted us to wince a little bit in sympathy with Virginia when the first cat sinks its teeth in. Then he wanted us to wince a bit more in horror as the cats start to get flung around, their bones crunching against the walls. Instead, the scene goes a bit off the rails, and people laugh. Fortunately for the film, Virginia's suicide is made understandable to the audience by the strength of Ika Nord's performance.

Another point is that Tomas is well known in Sweden as a comedic director. If he had wanted that scene to be funny, it would be funnier than people find it to be, and there would be no doubt that it was intended as comedy.

I love this film, and I have sympathy for people who want to defend it from criticism, but I also have to be honest. No, the Cat Scene was not up to the standard set by the rest of the film, and no, I do not believe that it was intended to be comical.

I guess it is fair to ask whether the scene could have been shot better, had more money been budgeted for the CGI. Is that a fair assumption?

a_contemplative_life wrote:I guess it is fair to ask whether the scene could have been shot better, had more money been budgeted for the CGI. Is that a fair assumption?

My main problem with the scene is that the cats weren't catlike, such as the one biting Virginia's calf. Cats are so fast that they can almost seem to be a blur. The one biting the calf was as slow and deliberate as Bela Lugosi biting a neck. Cats attack with claws (always), teeth rarely.

Better CGI--yes--but someone who knows cats as well as Gösta did would be needed to plan the scene. Stuffed cats flying through the air look like stuffed cats--they don't twist, land, and attack again like lightning. The poor little black cat didn't seem to be being restrained from attacking; it just seemed to be uncomfortable at being held that way.

While we're discussing the scene, I'll mention that Virginia didn't move like a vampire about to kill and feast. She moved like a zombie who had just wandered in off the street. BTW, it was in no way a comic scene to me. It was just clearly a cinematic misstep in an otherwise near perfect film.

Right, TA, if one is going to be a director, avoid scenes where one has to direct cats. Hence the old quip--"like herding cats."

a_contemplative_life wrote:I guess it is fair to ask whether the scene could have been shot better, had more money been budgeted for the CGI. Is that a fair assumption?

I think I remember reading somewhere that budgetary constraints in other areas of the movie were imposed by TA's having spent so much just on the CGI cat attack scene. Given that TA went to such lengths as spending time with Leandersson, watching documentaries involving cats, in order to bring in small, subtle details (Eli sniffing at the Rubik's Cube), what I'm wondering is if maybe money isn't the issue so much as the folks who did the CGI not really grokking what TA was looking for.

CGI can be notoriously difficult to pull off. What I'm also wondering is there couldn't have been some other way to convey what this scene was supposed to convey that wouldn't involve "herding cats" or relying on so much concentrated CGI.

dongregg wrote:My main problem with the scene is that the cats weren't catlike, such as the one biting Virginia's calf. Cats are so fast that they can almost seem to be a blur. The one biting the calf was as slow and deliberate as Bela Lugosi biting a neck. Cats attack with claws (always), teeth rarely.

I had a similar reaction, but not as clearly detailed. The whole scene just hollered "FAKE", and that's all I knew to say about it.

dongregg wrote:While we're discussing the scene, I'll mention that Virginia didn't move like a vampire about to kill and feast. She moved like a zombie who had just wandered in off the street.

Maybe a little too zombie-like to be bad directing or acting. Novel Virginia goes through stages of discovery about her new condition, eventually to be appalled to find herself thinking of people she loves as "food". First time or two I saw this scene, she came across as somebody who'd just been given very bad news, and that she has to do something now that she doesn't really want to be doing, and that she really doesn't understand what's happening to her.

I saw the movie before reading the book.

dongregg wrote:Right, TA, if one is going to be a director, avoid scenes where one has to direct cats. Hence the old quip--"like herding cats."

I can remember only one other movie in which a mass of cats attack. 1992 was a long time ago, and Stephen King's Sleepwalkers can't be held to the same kind of cinematic standard as LTROI. That scene didn't yell "fake" at me so much, though.

My only flaw was that the non CGI cats sat around doing nothing but that's only if you look for it, when I first saw they'd included it then watched it I was actually pretty impressed with the CGi.

It looks a hell of a lot better than some very high budget movies plastic, not there looking CGI and actually looked good in general, animals I assume are very hard to animate, yes the leg bite was a bit slow and not cat looking but I think it looks like cheesy old vampire movie bite (you know well telegraphed and slightly overacted) whether this was intentional or not I actually like it everytime, gives me a little smirk.

The cat in the candy store window was great. It was a real cat and the double exposure of Eli was well done, even if post-production.

Marlow wrote:The cat in the candy store window was great. It was a real cat and the double exposure of Eli was well done, even if post-production.

Yes! I read that someone was holding a real cat off camera, and the white cat was trying to get at it. My own little tabby goes nuts when a cat walks past our screen porch. Kill, Phoebe, kill! But she can't--she's an indoor cat!

I wondering how they antagonized the cat without violating film ethics.

Maybe the cat being a white haired Persian was an oblique reference to the dark haired Persian?

Considering I am the user making the so called "Strawman" argument in said link, allow me to clarify myself.
[EDIT]: SORRY, I read your post wrong. I thought you were referring to the comments and the users commenting. Sorry my bad

I never really had a problem with the Cat Scene in LTROI. Yeah, it's kind of B movie goofy in execution, but I always thought it was kind of goofy in the book as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was supposed to be a little bit amusing in the book, considering JAL does write with a black sense of humour laced throughout. So yeah, I never had a problem with it in the book or film.

The CG is bad, I will never deny that, but with a $5 million budget at their helm, well its hard not to forgive it a little bit. That's not to say it is above criticism, because it isn't.

I understand why it wasn't cut as its vital to the plot and serves its purpose. If anything, I've said before that the part of the scene I found to be really bad is where she falls down the stairs, it just looks like she has a bunch of lifeless fur glued to her coat. That's the moment were the scene overstayed its welcome, for me at least.

But I guess I'm a weird little monkey for finding it amusing in both forms. But I did not write that comment to automatically excuse the film from criticism, or for it to be a "strawman" argument. Just stating my thoughts was all.

Another point is that Tomas is well known in Sweden as a comedic director. If he had wanted that scene to be funny, it would be funnier than people find it to be, and there would be no doubt that it was intended as comedy.

What about Wes Craven with Freddy Krueger in Nightmare on Elm Street? Wes Craven certainly didn't think of Freddy as being a comedic figure, but there is no denying that in Freddy's menacing cruelness there is savage black humour laced underneath. Wasn't necessarily intentional on Craven's behalf, but it certainly struck a comedic chord with an audience.

Further point, what about the confrontation between Zomkan and Eli in the book? Certainly not an amusing scene, yet there is a little moment where Eli is amused at the sight of Zomkan's privates and the thought of him masturbating. Not to mention that in the same UK commentary for LTROI, JAL and TA both audibly laugh at the notion of Hakan as the "Mr. Bean of Serial Killers". Despite the serious role for which that character has in the film. But I fear this is a strawman argument on my behalf so I'll move on.

I can't speak as to what JAL's intentions truly were when writing that scene, but it has always struck me that JAL does write with a certain amount of humour laced underneath. LTROI is full of little comedic touches. The man was a comedian at one point in his life. I can't speak for certain as to whether the Cat Scene was meant to be humorous in the Book. But I certainly felt it was when I read it. It was a mixture of amusement and shock.

I thought the cat scene was ridiculous. We already got the fact they can recognize vampires with the white cat in the window. The only relevancy the scene had was to show how Virginia got into the hospital.That could have been done in a different way.