I am not entirely sure what to make of WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? after seeing it for the first time on Reel 13 in mid-September, I love Woody Allen, who served as the screenwriter for the 1967 film and can see glimpses of themes that he would later explore in a much more mature manner later in his career when he would go on to direct his own scripts – primarily sex and sexual exploration. However, I think the failure of WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? stems from almost exactly that – Woody Allen was not the director. Instead, Clive Donner is at the helm and the film sputters under his guidance. Until the last fifteen minutes, it does not seem to have any sort of structure, style or form. Then again, maybe that's the point. The film seems to adopt the same sort of freewheeling attitude toward storytelling that its characters do toward the film's subject matter - sex and sexuality.
At the heart of the issue I think is the construction of scenes and the staging of the actors and the camera. Dialogue and beats move at a rapid speed, but the camera and editing, for most of the movie, doesn't seem to keep up with them. Furthermore, the pace of the story is so quick that it's difficult to get a stranglehold on the characters. For example, as brilliant as Peter Sellers is, I could not, for the life of me, figure out his character's purpose or thru-line in the narrative. It's almost as if he was concocted just to give Sellers the opportunity to have an accent an do silly things and as a result, his scenes play like bad "Saturday Night Live" sketches (Speaking of which, what is up with that Kristen Wiig character that can't keep a surprise – who is telling her that those sketches are in any way funny?). It seems as if the filmmakers were somehow trying to channel a slapstick element a la Mack Sennett, but also combine it with the artistic sensibility and purpose of the non-narrative dada movement of the twenties. That equation results in a big 'ol mess. I almost have to wonder how many members of the collaborative team were on drugs during the creative process (seriously).
The film does have an occasional good idea – the couple arguing in front of the English as a Second Language class was clever. Also, the very end of the film transitions into traditional farce, complete with slamming doors, mistaken identities and zany chases through hallways. This is the most fun part of the film – it's well-staged, well-shot and action-packed enough to be thoroughly enjoyable, but it's certainly not worth the ride we were on for the first ninety minutes. In spite of its infrequent moments of inspiration, most moments feel unmotivated and unearned. The film is very off-balance – a silly, bizarre, all-over-the-place romp. I was very much looking forward to seeing it and so you can imagine my extreme disappointment.
(For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)