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

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.

---

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.

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

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).