Cat People is a hollow name given to an incredibly dense film. Like all good movies that belong to a certain level of acclaim, Cat People has this certain dichotomy between mere entertainment, and incredibly subtle and considered content that can be appreciated on a cerebral level as well as a sensory level. For example, The Godfather Film series(excluding part 3 of course)is on a base level, a gangster, almost action movie, with exciting action, betrayal, drama that will hold most viewers attention regardless of their preoccupation.
But on another level, it is a masterpiece of cinematography (Gordon Willis), some of the best examples of acting, coming from many great actors, subtle plot points with literary elements to back them up. It represents and exhibits Sicilian American culture precisely, with all the subtleties that will make a Sicilian feel at home while watching. It covers historical events within the plot, and creates an imaginary but totally realistic network of families that operate within the New York metropolitan area. The dialogue is superb and the acting is amazing. So like any great politician it “…can walk with kings, nor loose the common touch”(-Rudyard Kipling).
Cat People bares the same quality in that, on one level it is “Cat People, the entertaining B level Horror movie”, but on another level it contains countless poignant cultural themes buried in the relationships of the characters. This particular movie has so many , the viewer has trouble identifying one theme and sticking to it until the next one is introduced right after the other. It seems to me that the writing and analyzing on this film could be particularly endless. You just get a sense of extreme depth with each character and plot point, but there are so many, it’s almost as if the creators (writer, producer, director) were simply bragging about their depth of knowledge and cultural competence. The profoundness of one followed by another is dizzying. Luckily there is a definite base of entertainment and a simple enough plot to follow, without getting concerned with it’s implications. With such a plethora of over arching and incidental themes to write about, it is important to pick one to write about.
What I think is interesting about this film, is the unusual and unique roll of Irena Dubrovna
as the main character. This is one that I have not seen in my movie watching experience. She plays a definite femme fatale, but at the same time she is a hero. And this is not in an ironic, fatalistic, or black humor sort of way, which I’m sure has been done before. It is in a redemptive and sympathetic tragic sort of way. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “Femme Fatale” as “an irresistibly attractive woman, especially one who leads men into difficult, dangerous, or disastrous situations; siren.” And this is what Irena does. She does fit the description, although almost reluctantly. She was actually reluctant to get to know, and fall in love with Oliver Reed. She is our hero in that she does fall in love, and is it is her love story, but she is also the antagonist, villain, and femme fatale. And this equation, creates an exciting and provocative answer. Irena, the hero defeats herself into nothing. She sacrifices herself for humanity. In class we compared, Dr. lewis Judd, to Monte Beragon and I think that is a fair comparison. I’ve actually thought and think of both them as the male equivalents of the femme fatale. The Male Fatale, in that they both throw a wrench in the natural order of things. Wikipedia says in their article on “Femme Fatal”, that “One of the most common traits of the femme fatale includes promiscuity and the “rejection of motherhood,”. Irena has these qualities reluctantly. she talks about how she envy’s all the women she sees on the street. But I would say that our mentioned Male Fatales fit this description in that they are promiscuous but also reject fatherhood or any masculine qualities that would be associated with taking up the responsibility of fatherhood. They’re both these effeminate ladies men, like Russell brand types haha.
So In the end she saves her true Love from her involuntary violent execution, and instead kills the male fatale; preying, Russell Brand, English, Psychiatrist*. And then sacrifices herself ,Irena, the Hero, to the symbolic femme fatale version of herself; the panther. There are really entertaining and thought provoking implications resulting from being both a femme fatale and hero in a movie. She saves the world from herself in a way. So it is, specifically that end sequence that changes her from a slightly annoyingly
unexplainable character to a commendable heroine.
It’s interesting in that last scene both Oliver and Alice understand her struggle. Oliver remarks over her dead body that “she never lied to us”. Very cool climax to an funny sort of movie.
*[The fact that he is a psychiatrist has definite intended cultural significance, as well the fact that she is balkan, and that Oliver is classic “Americano”, (and the fact that she kills the worldly psychiatrist to save the local and homely american) I’m sure (Biblical Adam and Eve reference, the psychiatrist being the serpent… etc. all possibilities) . But that’s a whole other couple of essays.] This is what I mean about one cultural theme after the another!
Luke Tesoriero
Kiss Me Deadly: The Dark World of Film Noir 