Cats - Why did it run for so long?- Page 3

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 11:16pm

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.

Oh, I certainly didn't think you were saying that. I just don't think it's momentum was that mysterious. I never saw Cats on Broadway, but based on the original London design and the New London theatre, it was easy to see how it became a sensation so quickly when it did. War Horse would probably be a more apt comparison than Memphis. Memphis is hanging in there, but it's hardly a juggernaut and I don't see it venturing far beyond US shores or breaking any records.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 3/21/12 at 11:47pm

do you guys remember when james vanderbeek hosted SNL and he played rum tum tugger in CATS? it was hilarious... showing the backstage antics of the cast members... i tried to find a clip of it but i couldn't... or i think it was him who hosted... i'm sure

[sephyr]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:20am

I've only seen Cats on tape and I feel it might be much better live. The first time I saw it I thought it was great. Second time I paid more attention to the plot and such and it really dragged. I got confused about the plot (or lack of) and other things.

I still like some select songs and scenes and think the dancing and costumes are fantastic but I never make it all the way through any more. It just loses my attention after a while, unfortunately. I may give it another chance soon.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:40am

I'm kinda on the fence with the show, but lean towards the positive. I actually think the score has more merit than many here seem to--ALW doesn't do a bad job setting some difficult lyrics in a way that they're clear--and honestly the styles and rhythms he chose for the score aren't instantly suggested by merely reading the poems--I think some genuine craft went there. (one of several reasons Cats has endeared longer than the similar Starlight Express--at least in more different countries and markets, is due to the music and not just Memory IMHO--Starlight is similarly largely pop music pastiche but not nearly as strong).

Gaveston, while I don't doubt your experience whatsoever, your group of friends who detested Cats three years into the run--were they largely at least somewhat regular theatre goers? I know the production undoubtedly became a tourist trap the way Phantom has, but I also don't think it can be said it ran so long solely because of tourists.

I do think one thing not brought up too often so far isn't that international audiences can love it (which I find slightly ironic given how many have praised Eliot's poetry as a rare highlight) but that it was one of the first musicals--ok I guess Annie wasn't too old at the time but--in a long time that *families* could go to. A long time back as a teen an Aunt who had tickets for the tour with her daughter who was 5 or 6 at the time couldn't go and askjed me to go--that was when I was at my most cynical about ALW, megamusicals, etc, so I kinda begrudgingly went but I admit a part of the fun I did end up having was just seeing how thrilled and enraptured my niece was.

"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. "

That's not true though really is it? When it arrived Evita had really only been the one long run London "smash" that had come to NYC in a while--maybe since Oliver! which was not a massive massive hit. JeSus Christ Superstar opened in NY before London and was hardly a massive hit on the same scale. Cats was in many ways responsible for leading to the 80s Broadway dominance by West End musicals (and I always thought part of the reason many hated it is they held it responsible--even if they begrudgingly admitted to liking some of the later shows, there was definitely a feeling of backlash against London having hits on Broadway at a time when American shows weren't as much).

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 9:01am

Wasn't Cats the first to hike the prices for a musical to astronomic proportions? Didn't they hike it to $50?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 9:21am

Top price was $40 when it opened. I saw the OBC about three months into the run. They were fantastic and so was the show.

But I'm sure they hiked prices several times over the course of the 16-year run.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 9:45am

CATS ran for so long because it is pure and simple magic.

There is no plot to follow aside from remember that the cats are together to pick one to go onto everlasting life.

The danicing/choreography is amazing, the music is fun and it is family-friendly.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 9:52am

Serious lack of longcats in this thread.





Carry on, Mr. Bowditch.

[The8re phan]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 10:24am

it also helped that the show was brilliantly marketed long before it washed up on our shores (in the days before the internet). Those black t-shirts with the glowing yellow eyes were everywhere, and seemed to create alot of buzz about what the hell is Cats?

[fiesta1]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 2:49pm

Never discount the importance of foreign tourists on Broadway. CATS was perfect for the non-Anglophone tourist to NYC who wanted to catch a Broadway show. Now those same tourists flock to Phantom, Mamma Mia, and Blue Man Group.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:01pm

The Anglophones have a tendency to flock to all those shows as well. They actually make up the majority of the audience every time I've seen those shows.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:03pm

Hello? What? I can't understand a word you're saying! Callez vous back on the Francauxphone!

Updated On: 3/22/12 at 03:03 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:05pm

War Horse would probably be a more apt comparison than Memphis.

Sorry to be unclear, Matt. I didn't mean to suggest that MEMPHIS is a hit on CATS' level, just that MEMPHIS seems to be running on the strength of its Tony Award or something. At least that's my impression after seeing it on TV: who'd have thought HAIRSPRAY-without-the-humor was a good idea?

But of course everyone in and out of New York was talking about CATS in the early to mid-1980s. Obviously, that isn't true of MEMPHIS.

[Gaveston2]

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

Gaveston, while I don't doubt your experience whatsoever, your group of friends who detested Cats three years into the run--were they largely at least somewhat regular theatre goers? I know the production undoubtedly became a tourist trap the way Phantom has, but I also don't think it can be said it ran so long solely because of tourists.

Eric, I was talking about the reaction when the show first opened. And, yes, a lot my friends were theatergoers who saw the "British invasion" as a negative influence on the American musical. But I also ran into a lot of "regular people" who were baffled by the show's success as well; as I meant to say above, CATS was the first monster hit about which I'd ever heard such widespread complaints.

But CATS had a huge advance sale and that wasn't tourists. No, it was largely New Yorkers/regular theatergoers seeing it in the first few years.

*I* saw it three years into the run--when a friend started playing Mr. Mistoffelees and I could get house seats. By then, my friends were talking about something else, I'm sure. (Probably SUNDAY IN THE PARK.)

***

Eric, William Goldman devotes an entire chapter of THE SEASON to Broadway's love affair with things British and he was writing in 1968. From 1965 to 1977, the Times critic, Clive Barnes made no secret of his preference for any play or show from England.

No, not every import achieved the same success on this side of the Pond. But EVITA and CATS (like LES MIZ and PHANTOM later) had massive press coverage in New York for many months before they opened.

Their openings weren't just openings but "coronations" heralding "the latest big thing from the West End".

(Would CATS have run so long without that initial rocket-launch of hype? I doubt it, though I certainly acknowledge that many people here enjoyed it.)
Updated On: 3/22/12 at 03:12 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:38pm

So not used to disagreeing, but the love affair critics had during the time you state was for British PLAYS, not musicals from my limited perspective. Certainly critical reaction to Cats on Broadway had very little to do with its success.

Yes the hype for Cats ws huge but that was just as much marketing. Evita helped paved the way, but I don't think the British invasion--and people waiting for the latest British musical hit happened until *after* Cats, and was caused partly by Cats, not before Cats--if that makes sense.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 3:48pm

The Evita hype started in London with the casting of Elaine Paige. It was a HUGE press event that made her an instant celebrity in the UK long before previews even started. The buzz for the show just continued to steamroll nonstop right into the US.

Would CATS have run so long without that initial rocket-launch of hype?

Probably. The West End didn't have the advantage of all the hype and it ran even longer there. Hype certainly helps in initial ticket sales, but as seen with Jesus Christ Superstar and even more so with Starlight Express, it doesn't guarantee squat in the long run. All those Lloyd-Webber shows mentioned were extremely hyped, yet Cats was the only one that went truly viral on Broadway. And then came Phantom...

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 4:00pm

Matt, I don't believe JCS or STARLIGHT had anywhere near the hype that surrounded EVITA and CATS. JCS was popular because of the recording, of course.

Eric, you are correct that the original prestige was bestowed on English plays. (David Merrick was a master at exploiting the attitude that only the British could write drama any more.) But EVITA was directed by one of most prestigious directors of American musicals (Hal Prince) and CATS came from the director of the Royal Shakespeare Company. The American press was duly impressed.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 4:03pm

The hype for CATS was much larger than the hype for Evita, particularly outside of New York City. And Evita was a big hit. I would put Evita and Dreamgirls on a similar "Richter scale" reading.

But Cats was a global hit only matched by Les Mis and surpassed by Phantom.

Updated On: 3/22/12 at 04:03 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 4:25pm

JCS and Starlight didn't have as much press as Evita and Cats, but it was still quite substantial, including a Lloyd Webber television special that devoted quite a bit of time heralding his new roller-skating spectacle with footage of the cast meeting the Queen on stage.

The JCS hype was pretty big especially after the hit status of the concept recording and the protestations of religious groups. The hype had more to do with controversy than popularity, but JCS was turning heads right out of the gate. Four days after Broadway's opening night, it was an iconic cover of Time magazine in which the photo partially obscured the magazine title.

Honestly, I only think Les Mis and Phantom matched the huge publicity of Evita and Cats, but I don't think the run for Cats would have been more brief without it. It was the right show at the right time and it was so unusual, creative and environmental, people wanted to experience it. Cats exploded because it was so different. It endured from a combination of word-of-mouth, mass appeal, iconic imagery (both in its logo and its costume/make-up), valiant marketing that turned the musical into a fad, and a hit ballad. Almost everything about it smacked of being a hit. but they had NO IDEA when they were developing it. The show almost didn't happen as they lost their leading lady from an injury and ran out of money during rehearsals. Conceptually, those in the industry thought they were insane and the idea was ludicrous. Everyone involved was terrified until they had their first audience. It's really an interesting story.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 5:12pm

JCS (like GODSPEL off-Broadway) also benefitted from the legacy of HAIR and the arrival of rock music on Broadway. The other kids on my high school trip to New York couldn't wait to see it! (I gave my tickets away and went back to see APPLAUSE, but that says everything about my attitude toward rock in those days. My kids and MTV turned me around.)

Mister Matt and blaxx, you guys and I obviously have very different explanations for the success of CATS. Ultimately, there's no way to prove my belief that after the original production in the West End, people liked CATS largely because the hype had told them to like CATS.

But I do appreciate your opening my eyes to the fact that people I respect like the show on its own merits. I have to emend my theory to allow for you guys. LOL.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 5:28pm

And Gaveston, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. Some of your speculations just led to my own speculations. It was a real thought-provoking discussion and I was just thrilled to be able to engage in one that doesn't consist of "Cats sux! Then end." Usually, the mere mention of Cats just shuts people down completely. Like your suggestion that audiences were trained to like the show from the hype, musical theatre enthusiasts are often trained to hate the show by their peers. And often to a very nasty and dismissive degree. As if doing so initiates you into an invisible circle of respect or something.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 5:34pm

Absolutely, Matt, and I am living proof of your argument. Though I admit I disliked the show in part because I found the recording nonsensical and boring, I was also influenced by what I saw as an invasion of mediocrity from England (just as Prince and Sondheim broke up and Michael Bennett seemed to be having trouble following A CHORUS LINE, and then our best young artists started dying...).

And then I saw the show. I didn't love it and haven't seen it since, but it was better than I expected.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 6:41pm

I've never been a fan of CATS. I've always found the music derivative (I could hear Puccini's TURANDOT throughout the piece) and there wasn't any "hook" in the way of a story line to keep me engaged.

That said, the local summer theater just announced it'll be their first production of the season, so I'll be taking my granddaughter to one of their matinees. Perhaps I'll enjoy it more in a scalled-down production.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 6:44pm

"I tried seeing it once but the Latinos were just too loud so we left after the big litter box number."

Personally I found the Persians, Siamese, Burmese and Manx in the audience to be the most troublesome.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/22/12 at 7:28pm

Gaveston, I'll somewhat concede to your point... :P What I thought your initial argument was that Cats came at a time where the general public (ie not massive theatre goers) would all flock to what the biggest hit musical (the musical was my assumption) from England was when it came to Broadway. ANd I thought that had only somewhat happened with Evita and that it was actually Cats that wet the general apetite for whatever show was being talked about in London coming to New York with massive presales, etc.

Hal Prince in his book says one reason they opened Evita in LA before Broadway--unlike most London transfers to follow, was because he wanted to build hype in New York before opening which he didn't feel was fully there yet. But tthat's his conjecture (actually it's from either Prince: A Director's Journey or Prince and the American Musical Theater so is probably not a direct quote from him but what one of those authors said).

So I guess I still wonder what you mean by an invasion of mediocricity invading Broadway--I always thought that belief didn't start until Cats had already come to Broadway.

I remember maybe 1985 or so, I was five but became aware of it because the tour came to Calgary (we lived in Edmonton) and commercials were EVERYWHERE on TV and our babysitter made a trip to go see it and told us all about it. But more so I remember the reaction of my mom who was simply horrified by the amount of advertising and merchandise she saw and commented how she would never see it.

5 years later when we had moved and Phantom came to Vancouver the advertising was even more insane (and ALL my schoolmates were aware of the musical--I remember people would play the casette at lunch break) and my mom was even more put off by it--and the ticket price. But I wanted to see it and so she took me for my birthday and I saw Cats and Les Miz (and I think Joseph with Osmond which I never took to) in the next three years--by which point I had firmly became obsessed with Sondheim and my adolescent, extreme self thought that these Megamusicals were weak and the death of the genre (my mother's best friend who ran a very experimental theatre company in Denmark and now does the same in Italy was visiting and I had done a school project comparing old theatre designs to modern using a photo of the Phantom set for the modern example, and he said "You may as well just draw an empty box"). I've since mellowed out and realized that, like movies, or music, I can enjoy blockbusters/pop on one level and still enjoy the richer stuff on another.

Anyway long story short, my mother now is a much much much bigger Andrew Lloyd Webber fan than I have ever been (though she does prefer Sondheim, thanks to me forcing it down her, thankfully).