Cats - huh?

[children&art]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:08am

i saw "Cats" on tour in Dallas and tried to watch the DVD, but just couldn't get into it.

i kept thinking that b/c it was a long-running musical that i should like it, but i am totally in the dark on why it is so popular as it is.

some of the songs were good, but overall i was just thinking "enh".

can someone explain?

[Holly Therese]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:10am

You are not the only person who feels this way.

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:12am

Me too - I feel the same about Cats and, come to think of it, about Sweeney Todd, A Chorus Line and Hello Dolly (4 totally different, but 'revered' musicals)

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:13am

Yes, most people who can name more than two shows on Broadway have a strong loathing for Cats. Why did it do well? Who doesn't like cats?

[philcrosby]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:19am

CATS was groundbreaking when it premiered ... the first really sung-through, dance-oriented, musical spectacular. It also was sold out in a smallish theatre in London and became a "hot ticket" in the days when overseas travel was really cheap and it created a huge buzz for a production here. The reviews were mostly rapturous and it won a slew of Tonys and the legend was born.

I think it the other shows you mention are in a totally different league in terms of "classic status" ... DOLLY has certainly proved its worth as hilarious star vehicle, CHORUS LINE totally changed the face of how musicals are created and turned the "star" musical on its head, and SWEENEY is simply one of the greatest musical theatre works ever written (go back to the original cast recording of the DVD of the original production).

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:32am

I am not disagreeing with you on that but they still leave me cold, regardless of their credentials or their classic status.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 10:55am

Agree with Phil. I saw Cats in London during the original run. Not only was the theatre small, but it was in-the-round and the set and production were integrated into the space in many creative ways. You were extremely close to the actors as they raced into and out of the audience, the makeup and dancing were thrilling at such close range, and it was a very unique experience for most theatre-goers at the time. When the show moved to the states and went on tour, it lost the intimacy that was much of its charm. Although I loved my first time seeing it, you couldn't drag me these days to a big concert hall (like Music Hall in Dallas) to watch it; it just loses so much. All of the intimacy is lost on video as well. The live experience of musicals--especially small, unique ones--never transfers well to video and Cats translates particularly poorly.

I'm not defending Cats as great theatre, by any means. But those who see it on video or on tour simply do get the unique experience that audiences for the original run did, and that is why they are so often disappointed.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 11:04am

CATS is a "mood piece." It's poetry set to music and choreography. It's not a "book" musical or a pop-opera. There is nothing "traditional" about it. It's not like any other mainstream musical you've ever seen. If you went in expecting a standard-format mainstream musical, you'd be confused and disappointed.

I thought it was brilliant when I first saw it with the OBC.

EDIT: The perception is that because it was so incredibly popular it must now fit into some generic "likeable" mode... and it doesn't. It never will. It's really the "little avant-garde musical" that surprised everyone and proved to be a smash around the world.

Most people who like or love CATS can't articulate what it is that draws them to it. It's not as "tangible" as other musicals.

Updated On: 4/8/06 at 11:04 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 11:19am

I enjoyed CATS for many reasons.

One of them is that you can sit back and just watch the show - but it isn't like a fluff musical. No, you don't have to think about what is going on, but your ears aren't numbed by some beep-bop music.

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 11:56am

I think ALW's transpostion og Elliot's "Skimbleshanks" is absolutely brilliant. To have found a memorable melody for a poem with such various meter is a remarkable achievement.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 12:02pm

It was also a pretty popular tourist show, and that kept it open. Non-anglophones could follow it because it wasn't overly dependent on dialogue.

I didn't care for it much, but I will say that I thought the set and choreography were brilliant. I loved the Misfoffelees dance solo.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 12:18pm

I think it would follow logic that ANY show that runs for 18 years would be popular with tourists. If it were only popular with New Yorkers it would run for a season and close.

Broadway isn't "Broadway" because of New York audiences alone. That would just be "regional theatre" then.

I agree that because it's a "mood piece" and the music is catchy the show can succeed (if it's danced and acted by a particularly adept cast) without much understanding of the English language. It would come off more as a curious dance recital with a big set and some cool effects. But the T.S. Elliott poetry is probably this show's most unique feature. If you take away the words, you take away the main draw of what makes this special and unique. I've heard people complain that they couldn't (physically) understand the words, particularly on the various tours. That, to me, is a tragedy and the kiss of death for anyone trying to embrace this show.

Updated On: 4/8/06 at 12:18 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 1:25pm

The show was pretty inventive for its time.

[Mark Loves His Scarf]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:00pm

"Most people who like or love CATS can't articulate what it is that draws them to it. It's not as "tangible" as other musicals."

Best12Bars, I agree, whole-heartedly. I love Cats, and I really don't know what draws me to it. Many people have trouble with defining a plot and there really isn't a concrete plotline. It's more abstract much as how T.S. Eliot's poems are. It pulls you into another world that doesn't make sense, and doesn't really have to make sense. The dancing, the melodies are the quintessence of these jellicle tribes, it's what they do. Granted, I first saw Cats on DVD, which, for me, was extraordinary because there were so many different angles and I was just awed by their magnificent talent. When I saw the tour group live at Pechanga, I didn't get the same feeling, but the atmosphere was still there. Cats is different from any other show I've seen and I think that is what makes it so unique and things that are so unique either have people loving it or hating it.

[misto625]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:00pm

I do like Cats a lot but I can see why some people don't/ won't. It takes a certain investment in fantasy, and I personally am not seeing the show again until a major Equity production pops up since I know it too well and think that it's overdone and that the non-Equity is a shadow of the experience.

Chorus Line is a great show, Sweeney Todd is grotesque but has its. Hello Dolly is the worst musical I have ever seen.

[lesmisforever]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:07pm

Ha! I know my sister loves it b/c of the dancing. I am irritated by it. I used to love Memory, but that is way overdone and I'm sick of it. I digress.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:13pm

I can also see why some people wouldn't like CATS. Particularly if the "cat" performers on any given night are giving uninspired or clueless performances.

There's nothing worse as far as poetry than hearing someone recite it to you BADLY.

Ugh!

It's a special show. I don't see it resting comfortably on its ALW music and TSE poetry alone... and it requires a group of specially skilled performers to pull it off successfully. Not just a bunch of good dancers and singers, either. That's only part of the battle.

I was lucky enough to have seen it done very well with the OBC, and it was fantastic... like no other show I've seen before or since. I remember the level of "concentration" among them was almost unbelievable. You could scan across their faces and it was as if they were all on the EXACT same wavelength. Very intense and awe-inspiring.

But I "pity the fool" who has to sit through a misdirected and misunderstood performance of it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:17pm

Yeah, I think CATS got pretty sloppy, pretty quick. I'm sure the original productions were fascinating.

[PerforMeg]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:20pm

Excuse me, Misto.

Do not blame your opinion of a show on a non-Equity status. I have seen plenty of busted stuff on Broadway and other Equity theatres around the country. Anyone forget "In My Life?" "Dance of the Vampires"? There is terrible non-Equity theatre too-it is just a toss up.

Blaming lack of quality on the fact that it is non-Equity is a reason that there is so much division and hateful behavior amongst the arts community in New York. In Chicago, there are entire agencies for non-union artists only, as well as an entire category of Jefferson Awards (The Chicago Tony)given to non-Equity productions.

I have nothing against union status or the benefits it provides. I just hate that people think AEA members are talented and non-AEA aren't. After all, all Equity actors were non-equity at one point.

Sorry to get off topic but that makes me mad.

In relationship to the topic-CATS is full of meaning. You just don't catch it from the staging. Which is sort of unfortunate, yes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:22pm

MB---Margo saw the OBC too and didn't care for it. Although he was also a CHILD at the time. (Not that this discounts his opinion of it in the least.)

I was *cough* somewhat older than that, however.

[kaboodles041]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 9:27pm

I saw Cats when I was pretty little. It was one of my first B'dway shows. I remember not liking it at all except for the set, and a big part of it was not understanding it. As someone said, you have to think.
Recently I was talking to an adult and they said they liked it and that it really has a lot of adult themes that most kids wouldn't get, and if I were to see it now, I might like it better. So I wanted to know, did anyone see it when they were younger and not like it, and then see it when they were older, and the opinion changed?

[misto625]

Posted: 4/8/06 at 11:26pm

PerforMeg- I didn't say the non-Equity tour was bad!!!! I just said that I liked Cats better on Broadway, I might not have chosen to see the tour if I hadn't seen it on Broadway. I saw the final cast in July 2000 and I saw the tour on September 9, 2001 (2 days before 9/11 and almost a year after Broadway closing) and again in May 2004, so I do like the tour, wanting to see it twice, but nothing compares to Broadway and the experience. Look at my username, of course I love Cats and have considered it to be my favorite show for the better part of 6 years. I recognized which character was in your avatar right away. My main complaint about non-Equity is scaled down physical production and lower salaries when the ticket price is stil the same, not anything about quality of performance. I don't think I have seen a bad non-union tour. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

Updated On: 4/8/06 at 11:26 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 5:15am

There was a HUGE difference in seeing it on Broadway... They transformed the Winter Garden theatre (to the tune of millions of dollars), and the audience was actually surrounded by the enormous set. Some of them were even sitting on the stage.

This could not be replicated in any other U.S. production... and it did make a significant difference in the audiences' experience.

[Emilia]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:12am

I had the same response to many in that I just didn't 'get' cats!

I saw it on tour in 2004 in Montreal and while I can't fault the production I was left indiffrent. Had I seen the original in London, which I remember many friends talking about (I'm a UK-er) I might have felt differently... then again maybe not. Strangely 'Memory' was the first song I really learned to sing (my music teacher had a major thing for ALW music -well it was the late 80s ) so I was disappointed I didn't love the show it came from.

[Color and Light]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:46am

I'll honestly admit that I'm not a fan of Cats, even as a big admirer of old TSE. However, I do give credit where it is due. It was taking on a daring concept fists and elbows, and the choreography was absolutely amazing and so much fun to watch. I just don't particularly care for the music itself - I might cry if I hear "Memory" one more time - although I will second the "Skimbleshanks" comment someone made earlier. That song is completely delightful.

At the very least, Cats was different experience, and seeing as this is the age of movie adaptions/jukebox musicals (some good, some bad, some rotten), we can only hope for more shows just as daring.

Updated On: 4/9/06 at 06:46 AM