CATS-why? (tour)

[showbiz287]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 2:07pm

I caught the recent tour of Cats here in Rhode Island. I just don't get why so many people like this show and why it's gone on for so long!?!??!? I've seen it before when I was younger and I dont remember hating it so much. Every number is dragged out. The music is nothing special. Plot is...oh wait there isn't one. And just the character of Cassandra, I hated her poses, don't know why it drove me insane! (it wasn't the performer, thats the way the role is always played.)

I had no problem with the performers, they all got the job done. SPECIAL RECOGNITION to ANGIE SMITH who had the audience in the palm of her hand when she sang Memory. Keep an eye out for her. Also, a special kudos to the designers and painters of the "Inflatable Set" under the lighting, and with the use of some "non-inflatable" set pieces no one would ever guess!

http://www.3dair.com/stagesets-cats.php

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 02:07 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 2:17pm

Well, the first problem is that you saw a third, fourth, fifth, of sixth rate tour.

I saw a few touring productions back when CATS was still running on Broadway - and even then they were tired and leagues worse than what ever appeared on Broadway.

All of the choreography, costumes, sets, lighting, etc. is just an adaptation of the original. If you check your program, I bet you'll see that the choreography is not by Gillian Lynne, but based off of Lynne's original choreography and adapted by someone else.

CATS doesn't work in a giant barn or a giant auditorium. What made CATS so absolutely spectacular on Broadway was the fact that the audience was in the same environment with these creatures. The entire Winter Garden Theatre was ripped apart and redesigned. The stage didn't have a proscenium as it does now, but it was more of an environmental space. It was the perfect combination of choreography, costume, lighting, sets, music, direction, and performance. No, it's not Shakespeare and it's not a traditional linear story - but it's a piece that had the unique capability of transforming the audience's surroundings.

You, no doubt, also heard a very watered down orchestration of the show. As originally done on Broadway, CATS (while it always beared a certain synthesized sound) was full, righ, and fulfilling. The score, if you ask me, is among Lloyd Webber's best. CATS is taken for granted now, but if you look at what was done - adapting a book of children's poems with no through story for the Broadway stage. It's a huge achievement.

I think it's one of those things, unfortunately - "you had to be there." What happened on that stage every night was magic. It wasn't about just the story, or just the dancing, or just the music. It's a glorious combination of every single possible element to create an unforgettable night of theatre.

Go back and read some of the original reviews. None of them say "It's brilliant!," they all basically say what I just did.

Also, it's a lot easier to look back now and judge something.


But it's horrible to see and hear (and I've seen it with my own eyes) trite, watered down touring productions that don't accurately represent a show. I'm all for touring companies spreading theatre across the world, but there need to be more standards. If CATS was in bad shape when I saw it 7+ years ago, I can't imagine how poor it looks now.

Just keep that in mind. It's not an accurate representation.

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 02:17 PM

[showbiz287]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 2:34pm

I can definitely identify with a tour losing their once full broadway potential. The (Official Disney) Beauty and the Beast tour does not compare to the show that is currently (not for much longer) running on Broadway.
I can agree with CATS was something to be experienced in NYC, and I am guessing maybe the fact that there was no plot, and it was the experience of being IN the theatre, was something revolutionary for its time.

[misto625]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:06pm

I have always felt a strong connection to Cats. I saw Cats on Broadway when I was 13 the summer before they closed (they closed the day after my Bar Mitzvah!) and then saw the touring production one year to date of closing later. Not as thrilled as I was on Broadway, but 2 days later was September 11, 2001 and everything changed. I saw the touring production once more in May 2004 and will be hopefully seeing it again in Boston later this month. I never was fully impressed with the touring production for the reasons others (mainly munkustrap) have enumerated above but I still kept going nonetheless because Cats live on stage is still better than Cats on video, and checking in with it every three years seems to do me good. Here's hoping for a revival on Broadway. If Les Miz can come back, how about Cats too.

P.S. I agree with showbiz about the Beauty tour as well, which is a show I love as much as Cats if not more.

[otis33]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:14pm

Cats (or the memory of Cats, anyway) remains one of my all-time favorite shows. I'll even go so far as to say it was my Wicked. I used to get standing room for the Bway production every time I had the $10 to spare. I took my partner and my best friend to see the non-eq. 25th anniversary tour about 2 years ago. We left at intermission.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:27pm

And just the character of Cassandra, I hated her poses, don't know why it drove me insane!

That made me laugh out loud.

[otis33]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:36pm

I always loved Cassandra. It's one of the roles I wanted to play - unfortunately, I didn't think a short stocky boy would look good in that costume.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:10pm

I hate it when people see the show and then have the nerve to accuse it of not having a plot. It has an extremely detailed through line narrative if you choose to look closely enough. Sure it's not conventional, but it's clear to me that a great deal of thought went into the devising of the show and the order in which things needed to occur in order to tell that story better.

It starts off during "The Invitation to the Jellicle Ball" letting you know exactly what the story is, introduces you to all the cats "auditioning" for a coveted spot (a al A Chorus Line) includes a great deal of side plot including Macavity, Old Deuteronomy’s kidnapping, the battle and his return, and then by the end of the night raps things up with the prostitute Grizabella's being chosen to start life anew.

It is very much a concept show due to the fact that T.S. Eliot had drawn up "sketches" for the purpose of using and incorporating the poems into an "evening", and I've always been rather impressed as opposed to finding it ludicrous that Webber, Nunn and Lynn were able to construct an evening of musical theatre, after Eliot's death, with the ban that the Eliot estate put on the inclusion of original material. They were therefore forced to create a "plot" using the unpublished poems of Grizabella, Eliot's "Rhapsody on a Windy Night" and fragments based on two phrases:

"Jellicle cats come out tonight, Jellicle cats come one come all. The Jellicle moon is shining bright, Jellicles come to the Jellicle Ball".

and the unpublished idea of Eliot's that a cat would eventually travel "Up, Up, Up past the Russell Hotel. and "Up, Up, Up to the Heaviside Layer".

It is very much a story of redemption and acceptance that ends up being a heavy subject matter for a show that is often considered to be a children's musical.
Updated On: 2/11/07 at 04:10 PM

[Sant]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:16pm

Now that both of the "definitive" productions of CATS (London's original and Broadway) have closed the production company has 'released the production requirements'. Earlier the productions had to be pretty much carbon copies of the London production. But not anymore. Production teams are now allowed to create their own sets, costumes and make-up - and choreography! I know this because one of these productions will open near my home town later this year and some publicity shots have been released already.

But as for "why"... one word: bucks. The title "CATS" combined with "Andrew Lloyd Webber" sells. Just like "Cameron Macintosh" and "LES MISERABLES".

[Sant]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:16pm

Now that both of the "definitive" productions of CATS (London's original and Broadway) have closed the production company has 'released the production requirements'. Earlier the productions had to be pretty much carbon copies of the London production. But not anymore. Production teams are now allowed to create their own sets, costumes and make-up - and choreography! I know this because one of these productions will open near my home town later this year and some publicity shots have been released already.

But as for "why"... one word: bucks. The title "CATS" combined with "Andrew Lloyd Webber" sells. Just like "Cameron Macintosh" and "LES MISERABLES".

[MovieGuy1031]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 7:28pm

I saw a tour of Cats in Toledo, OH... probably exactly one year ago. Our Munkustrap sang like he had a retainer in... it was so bizarre. Grizabella was PHENOMENAL, though she was tall and beautiful... which doesn't exactly work for that character. Also, instead of red lipstick, she had a trail of "blood" coming from her lips.

And Old Deut. sat on stage through the ENTIRETY of the 20 minute intermission. Now THAT was weird.

Also, Grizabella's journey to the Heavyside Layer consisted of the tire floating upward, and her boarding a small platform that looked like a UFO...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 7:37pm

The is one of the great mysteries of life. Why was Cats such a monumental hit?. Only God knows

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 8:00pm

I think of the Winter Garden as a giant barn so I guess that's why the original left me so cold. I may have been disappointed because I happened to know the T. S. Eliot poems very well and the music seemed to trivialize whatever substance I had perceived in them. I also had such high expectations - always a recipe for disappointment, no matter how good the production.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 8:01pm

In reality, the Winter Garden is not that big

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 9:20pm

I gotta agree with Munk. Seeing it at the Winter Garden was "special". Once I even sat in those "on stage-side" seats. Now that was different! The show really did have all the entertainemnt elements that make up a magical song/dance/costume/sets/staging success. That's why people loved it!...imo. at least at the Winter Garden.

And I also gotta tell you Laurie Beechman's Grizabella broke hearts.

[Broadway Baby4]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 10:15pm

IMO, Cats is one of those show that you really have to understand to enjoy. At first it seemed like their is absolutely no plot. But now, after seeing it at the winter garden (in the on-stage seats!!) and watching the movie dozens of times, I understand the plot and the characters so much more, making the show SO much more enjoyable than the first time I saw it.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 10:16pm

I've often thought that CATS would do well in revival in a small house instead of another barn like the Winter Garden. I enjoyed the original production, saw an absolutely horrendous one at the MUNY, and endured a mediocre one in Paris. But everyone seems to think that it has to be played *big*. I wonder if it might work far better played *small*.

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 10:16 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 10:18pm

The Winter Garden isn't a barn at all, especially when CATS was there. What are you talking about?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 10:21pm

Please. The place is huge. I've seen three shows there: PACIFIC OVERTURES, CATS, and MAMMA MIA, and every time I went, I felt like I was walking into one of the biggest houses on Broadway.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 10:50pm

If you want big broadway theaters,try the following on for size:

The Gershwin
The Broadway
The Majestic

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:42pm

^ Or how about the Minskoff - where to get to the rear balcony seats you have to take the ferry over to Hoboken and then get on an airplane!

[showbiz287]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 12:23am

On the subject of CATS..

Whilst searching for maybe a video of Angie Smith who's voice gave me millions of chills I found one fans obsessed with CATS video. I think the first sign of obsession is when referring to a giant CATS poster comments "poster on the wall...where they great me, everytime I come in the room"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp9Q1XfIbZY

love it
seriously, think of the cash this woman must've had to buy all these original costumes!!!

Updated On: 2/12/07 at 12:23 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:25am

The Winter Garden is a large theatre, but I don't think it qualifies as a BARN.

As it was curing CATS, it was very intimate.

I wasn't alive for PACIFIC OVERTURES, but I'm assuming it's the same set up for MAMMA MIA - in which case I still don't say it's a barn.

Sure, if you're in the last row of the Mezz, any theatre looks like a barn - but from the orchestra, it looks perfectly normal.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 11:37am

CATS was my first Broadway show, and I've got to jump on the, "You had to be there," bandwagon. I saw official touring companies, but though the actors were talented, it just didn't pack the wallop that it did in the WinterGarden's environmental setting. I also saw it in London, and though it was much better there than in the US touring companies, it still didn't hold a candle to the Broadway production.

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:16am

I saw the show last night at the Opera House in Boston, our second largest house. It was wayyyyy too big for this show. No one could really get into the story and appreciate all the dancing and moving around because the action was so far away. The sound system, probably more accustomed to smaller houses, made group number extremely hard to hear and understand. Also, once the cats went into the orchestra to walk around, we up in the mezzanine couldn't see them at all. I can't help thinking I would have enjoyed it better if it were in a smaller theatre.