Cats - Why did it run for so long?- Page 2

[PattiLover]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 11:46am

It's a pretty fun show. The music is really some of Lloyd Webber's most uninteresting truly, but I've always enjoyed T.S. Elliot's whimsical poetry. Hell, it's some of the best lyrics you'll hear in an ALW show (even if they don't always match the music perfectly). There's no doubt in my mind that Cats is a good idea for a musical.

The set was fun, especially since the entire theatre was the set. I couldn't bring myself to see it on tour without the whole theatre being part of the set. Cats was full of color and spectacle and dancing and costumes - just a well marketed show. Even the logo was perfect, and like Les Mis and Phantom, the logo seals the deal. I remember hearing about ads in the NYTimes before it opened with just those cat eyes and the quote "aren't you curious? To me that is brilliant. It probably also ran so long because it became a NYC institution, and you didn't need to know English to get a kick out of it.

I remember the first time I saw Cats on Broadway - it was the day Princess Diana died. Laurie Beechman was Grizabella - and hearing her sing Memory was one of my great theatre moments ever. She was gone within a year. I still miss her.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 11:52am

The play SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION also had a lot of clever, nasty fun at CATS' expense.

It also had a savvy, beautiful advertising campaign. The poster, like WICKED and CHICAGO, was eye catching, elegant, and intriguing.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 12:26pm

I loved the part in the first 60 seconds when the glowing red cats eyes are in your face. Unfortunately, there are another 4 hours after that.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 12:59pm

Because during intermission you could go onstage and stand in the exact spot where Barbra Streisand stood and originated the song "People".

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 1:01pm

I saw the filmed stage production and the choreography was really, really cool. That being said, I never listen to the cast recording.

I love that recurring joke on The Nanny! Mr. Sheffield's rivalry with ALW was fantastic.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 3:04pm

"It attracted a large international audience. It was pure spectacle and understanding english was not necessary.

Personally I found it god awful. The score is sooo bad. but I did love Laurie Beechman and sat through it just to hear her sing that song. I don't miss Cats, but I still miss Laurie.

I agree with Marc about the show and about Miss Beechman. The short answer is CATS ran so long because Japanese tourists didn't need to understand every word of it. (OH, CALCUTTA! was revived and ran for years and years at the same time and with the same international audience, minus a few kids.)

My memory of living in New York at the time was that the locals HATED the show. I was asked more than once by "civilians", "What the hell is up with that cats show!"

And though blaxx is right that the set was well done, I'd say an environmental setting in New York was unusual rather than groundbreaking.

That being said, when I finally saw it a few years in (friend in the cast by then), it wasn't as bad as I'd imagined listening to the record. Miss Beechman certainly helped; I'm sure Betty Buckley did, too.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 3:17pm

It's absolutely style over substance and I certainly couldn't -- and wouldn't -- try to constuct an argument for artistic merit in its consistency or dramaturgy, but as far as theater trash goes, it's heads and shoulders above SPIDER-MAN. It was -- as it was for so many -- my first Broadway show, and while stretches of it were certainly confounding, interminable, or just plain flat, there were also moments of exuberant mini-storytelling, dazzling choreography, as well as some genuinely touching and funny moments, and a small handful of rather arresting melodies, which, I daresay, I still listen to from time to time. (And I cop to that as a pretty ardent ALW detractor.)

It's not good theater... but it's also an easy target, and because of that, some of the potshots people take at it -- though admittedly funny -- are just this side of a little overblown.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 3:25pm

Wrong question. The right question is...

How could ALW have enhanced his pre-raph collection by musicalizing Murder in the Cathedral or The Cocktail Party?

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 4:18pm

I saw the show shortly after it won the Tony for Best Musical. I actually liked it, and loved the set design. I also saw the first national tour in Boston and liked it even more (especially with Laurie Beechman as Grizabella).

I then saw it again in '92 when I was dating someone from the show at the time. Oh my, time was not good to this show. It seemed like the friend I went with were the only English speaking people in the audience. The show was just so flat, that I didn't know what to say to the guy I was seeing after the show.

[ChildrenwillListen]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 4:20pm

Yeah as much as I love cats the animal, I don't feel like watching people acting like cats. I don't care if its Broadway.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 4:23pm

I pretty much echo what blaxx originally said. The show's success was very much anchored in being innovative for its time. And the Mackintosh marketing machine was just as innovative in turning the show into the must-see musical worldwide. It's not just a case of this show having a long run on Broadway. It's had a long run EVERYWHERE and it continues to have productions and tours all over the world. So, while some may think the material is poor or that it is a bad musical, it makes absolutely no difference. It was definitely good enough for the rest of the world. It's not my favorite show, but when I saw it in London, I got it. It was immediately clear how audiences of all ages were dazzled, delighted and moved by this show for decades. I wouldn't call it style over substance because the substance was in the style. And it was abundant.

For some interesting insight into the creation of the show, the BBC series, The Story of Musicals, is quite fascinating. I also like the segment on Starlight Express. The creatives never apologize for their work on either, but explain why they chose to create those shows and remained true to their visions. None of them expected a hit from Cats. They were terrified of being laughed out of the business, including the cast.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 4:39pm

To me, it was all about the dancing. Yes, there are other shows that have had better dancing before and after Cats but to most, this was there first exposure to a dance musical. Not to mention the costumes were impressive.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 5:30pm

I'm not exactly disagreeing with Mister Matt, but the fact that the show was a success in many different countries isn't necessarily proof that people loved it everywhere.

CATS arrived in NYC as "the smash London hit" in a day when success in the West End practically guaranteed a pre-sold hit on Broadway. Then CATS was marketed everywhere as the "West End and Broadway smash", etc. and so forth.

Frankly, and though I've admitted I wasn't bored when I finally saw it, until this thread I'd never heard anyone exactly rave about it either. In my experience, it's far more common for people to ask, "What was all the fuss about?"

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 5:44pm

Frankly, and though I've admitted I wasn't bored when I finally saw it, until this thread I'd never heard anyone exactly rave about it either. In my experience, it's far more common for people to ask, "What was all the fuss about?"

That might have been the case years into its run, but certainly not after it opened. It was the hottest ticket in town and left everyone in awe. New Yorkers certainly didn't hate it at once and responded very well to it. Its hype and content eventually resulted in hate towards it, but that was years after.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 5:47pm

"Cats! It's about cats. Singing cats.

You'll love it.

Eight o'clock, the theatre's always at eight.

F*cking tourists."

Updated On: 3/21/12 at 05:47 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 5:57pm

I'm not exactly disagreeing with Mister Matt, but the fact that the show was a success in many different countries isn't necessarily proof that people loved it everywhere.

Well, my point wasn't just that it played in different countries, but that it endured. It was one of those shows that developed a huge obsessive fan base. I had friends in the 80s who saw it over and over and over again, collecting every piece of memorabilia they could get and naming their own cats after the characters, etc. There was one girl I knew who had a personalized "CATS" license plate on her car that she had autographed and replaced at every tour and framed them all. It might not have impressed a lot of native New Yorkers, but I seriously doubt it would have been an international sensation and continue to tour if people weren't impressed with it.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 6:08pm

I'll always have a soft spot for CATS as I always use to pass the Winter Garden on my way to school every morning and gaze at that huge billboard over the marquee with the logo.

CATS was a HUGE hit when it first opened and it was THE SHOW to see. It wasn't until much, much later that the backlash started due to it's extremely long run.

Updated On: 3/21/12 at 06:08 PM

[GatorNY]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 6:22pm

It's interesting because back then when a show had buzz...it had to spread by real word of mouth, pen and paper, or the newspaper. I remember growing up in Ft Lauderdale and the people who had seen CATS were the bomb. The only way I got to hear about Broadway was to read the 1/2 page column that would come out in the Ft Lauderdale News Weekend section on Fridays. They would list every show and say whether the shows were at capacity, near capacity, or available. It's crazy how much has changed since then.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 6:31pm

Gator, I'm also from Fort Lauderdale, but old enough to remember when the Parker Playhouse was built. Before then, the only theater in town consisted of high school musicals and the rare bus-and-truck tour to War Memorial.

I got my "Broadway news" by combing the OBC bin in record stores and reading the liner notes.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 6:36pm

That might have been the case years into its run, but certainly not after it opened. It was the hottest ticket in town and left everyone in awe. New Yorkers certainly didn't hate it at once and responded very well to it. Its hype and content eventually resulted in hate towards it, but that was years after.

blaxx, I don't doubt your word or Mister Matt's, but we obviously knew different people. Yes, CATS arrived pre-sold from London and was a hot ticket.

But it stood out to me precisely because it was the "hit" that everybody hated. (And I moved to California three years after it opened, so I'm not talking about late in the run.)

Yes, people argued about Sondheim shows, but that was done with a modicum of respect on both sides. CATS was my first experience with a smash hit that provoked the kind of ire we are now used to seeing in boards like this one.

But to reiterate: I am not for a moment doubting that you and Mister Matt experienced different reactions and/or had different reactions yourselves. I want to be clear about that.

ETA I was literally interrupted once by an information operator (remember those?). When I asked for a number for a theater, she responded, "You go to the theater? What about CATS? I heard that was a hit, but then I SAW it!" Ah, New Yorkers! I miss 'em!

Updated On: 3/21/12 at 06:36 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 7:11pm

I definitely agree that the hype did not sit well with the locals. It was to an extreme that it seemed that Broadway was before and after Cats. Of course, as it works with art in general, time helps to determine the true value of a piece and it is now the hit everyone loves to hate.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 7:33pm

Well said, blaxx.

For the record, I agree that the set was cool, the choreography often fun, and CATS was one of the last musicals to produce a true, Top 40 hit song.

But to me, it stands out as an example of how a hit creates itself in spite of whether audiences really like what they see and hear. West End success (inspired in part because CATS simply wasn't as bad as everyone feared it would be) produces a pre-sale in New York that insures the show is basically sold-out for its first two years on Broadway (despite what IIRC were tepid reviews). That pre-sale makes it a hard-to-get ticket and raises expectations both in New York and elsewhere.

Even though I've known a lot of people who felt their expectations were betrayed, there must also be many who went into the theater believing the show was great and humming the hit tune and, given the show's general lack of content, saw nothing to change their minds.

And so--for a lot of people--the hit is a hit largely because it's a hit. A sentiment Gertrude Stein would have loved.

But I accept that you feel the exact opposite and have good reasons for doing so.

And there's no question a backlash grew as the show ran and ran. A lot of us felt somehow personally offended when CATS ran longer than DOLLY!, FIDDLER and then even A CHORUS LINE, shows that in their days seemed to combine artistic merit with commercial appeal.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 8:28pm

Too funny Gaveston...my high school graduation was at War Memorial, and I saw They're Playing our Song with Lorna Luft at Parker Playhouse.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 8:57pm

Honestly, I think Cats does have artistic merit, but it is primarily in its designs, staging, choreography and innovation. I always hear about artistic merit being attached solely to the book and lyrics, but Cats was never intended to be a conventional book musical, so they heightened other artistic elements of the show knowing they were using Eliot's poems as a springboard for a highly stylized piece. I always see people attempt to fault it for this, but I don't get why. Ad as for the music, I think Webber wrote several stunning tunes, many of which were quite catchy, melodic and memorable.

And I get what Gaveston is saying about Broadway riding the West End wave, but that wave had to start somewhere. Other West End successes have not fared well on Broadway and vice versa. Cats was already a smash in London before it transferred. The positive buzz came from the audiences and critics that had seen it during the pre-internet era. It gained a reputation and it was something completely new and different. It's not like people were flooding the box office hoping to buy a ticket to something they heard was just sort of okay. They were intrigued, they wanted to see what the fuss was about, and they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on...and so on...and so on.

Thus was not the case with Canterbury Tales, Buddy, Joseph or Aspects of Love.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 10:02pm

Absolutely, Matt. But none of those other shows arrived with the hype I remember for CATS. Unless I've simply forgotten, it was actually reviewed far more favorably by the American press seeing it in London than by the American press when it finally got here. I remember love letters written to the West End production in the Times, TIME, etc.

To me, there's just no there there in CATS. (Sorry. Two Gertrude Stein allusions in one thread.)

And there are no words for what the show does to poor T.S. Eliot and his whimsy. I find ALW's music simultaneously ponderous and lightweight. And I admit I'm more interested in the book and score of a show than in dance or spectacle.

To be fair, I did not mean to imply that CATS is the only, first or last show to be carried by its own mysterious momentum. Didn't MEMPHIS just play its 1,000th performance?



Updated On: 3/21/12 at 10:02 PM