Synopsis: It’s tough being the cat’s meow! A “zany blend of slapstick gags and madcap comedy” (Cue), this “hilarious (Motion Picture Herald) romp, starring Peter Sellers, Peter O’Toole and Woody Allen in his acting and screenwriting debut, is the “wildest, wackiest” (Boxoffice) film to emerge from swingin’ ’60s.
Michael (O’Toole) is a mademoiselle magnet. His demented psychiatrist (Sellers) and sex-starved friend (Allen) would kill for this problem, but his would-be fiancée (Romy Schneider) might just kill him. Undergoing therapy, Michael tries to reform, but it won’t be easy with sex kittens like Ursula Andress, Paula Prentiss and Capucine on his tail!
***********************************************************************
eyelights: the script.
eyesores: the execution. the performances. the “madcap” third act.
“I’ve had a lot of experience fondling, er, handling young women like you. And it’s all got to stop.”
Anyone who reads this page knows that I’m a solid Woody Allen film fan. Whenever a new one comes out, I’ve gotten into the habit of seeing it at the cinema – something I rarely do in general. I also have every single available Woody Allen-related motion picture on DVD or BD, including the ones he didn’t write and/or direct. I even have some books and CDs that are Allen-related.
But that doesn’t make me an indiscriminate fan, however. The man can’t do no wrong (Can’t not do wrong? Cannot donut wrong? What?): he has been known to rehash his themes, and for every excellent picture he releases, there is a less stellar one. And don’t get me started on his personal life, which has been shrouded with all sorts of allegations for at least two decades.
‘What’s New Pussycat?’ is one of his movies that I have a difficult time with. I know that it was a hit at the time and that it’s considered a sixties comedy classic, but I’ve always found it slightly off, tonally. As well, the casting is problematic for me, despite the prominent roles that both Allen and Peter Sellers (two of my all-time favourite comedians) have. No matter how often I watch it, I simply don’t warm up to it.
The picture, which was written by Woody Allen (it’s his first produced screenplay) concerns the romantic entanglements of Michael, a womanizer who is trying to settle down but keeps attracting the attention of all sorts of delectable vixens. He can’t help it: when the light hits him a certain way, he’s handsome. His struggles with temptation cause him all sorts of grief with his fiancé, Carole.
And thus he consults his friend Victor (Allen), who also happens to have a crush on Carole, and seeks the help of demented psychiatrist Dr. Fritz Fassbender (Sellers) to get him through his moments of weakness. He even goes to Fassbinder’s group therapy sessions, but inevitably catches the eye of a lovely nymphomaniac, whom the doctor has his eye on, causing further problems.
Set in Paris, France, ‘What’s New Pussycat?’ is meant to be a farce: it weaves together all manner of ridiculous situations and silly characters together until they converge in the third act – a nonsensical smorgasbord of contrived mania as only the late ’60s could offer. In the end, everyone chases each other in a hotel until the cops arrives, and then they have a go kart chase.
SO madcap!
On paper, I suspect that the picture might have seemed really good, which might explain the incredible cast that the filmmakers assembled: Peter O’Toole, Romy Schneider, Peter Sellers, Woody Allen (in his first on-screen role), Capucine, Paula Prentiss, and even a cameo by Ursula Andress. In fact, the dialogues are quite good. Unfortunately, the performances are far too campy.
Let’s face it: Peter O’Toole may be considered by many as one of the greats, but he’s no comic genius – something he continually proves throughout (to be fair, Warren Beatty was the original choice for the part). But even Peter Sellers is gratingly bad, overdoing every emotion, inflection, or gesture to the point that his Dr. Fassbinder is no longer wacky, but a liability.
Much of this may be due to Clive Donner’s direction: an actor’s performance is guided by the director’s hand, and excellent actors can suck when poorly-directed (ex: the cast of ‘The Phantom Menace’). Further evidence can be found in the poor staging and editing, which is, quite frankly, atrocious: the scenes are cut together abruptly, and at times in an almost ramshackle fashion.
Woody Allen has been quite candid about his dislike of the picture, saying that it distorted his screenplay. Along with ‘Don’t Drink the Water‘, this no doubt contributed to the control he sought on his own pictures. It’s a darned shame because there are a number of terrific exchanges along the way, the type of absurdist and situational humour that Allen would be known for after dabbling in slapstick for a short while.
But, as delivered here, ‘What’s New Pussycat?’ serves up only mild enjoyment; it’s so poorly-assembled that it constantly distracts one’s attention from the dialogues – unarguably its finest feature. Still, it does have its moments plus which I have a weakness for these late ’60s productions: the sets, the clothing, the way people dance, it all screams kitsch, even if that wasn’t the initial intention.
Fans of the era and of Woody Allen might enjoy this picture, if only as a modest curiosity. Everyone else should just move along.
Date of viewing: July 31, 2014
thecriticaleye 