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

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.

---

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

---

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---