Cats bashing

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:15am

Why are people constantly bashing Cats? I'm not especially fond of it, but then again I never saw the original production and doubt many of the people on board saw it either. Hmmm...11 Tony nominations and 7 wins for those shoddy, untalented people like Trevor Nunn, Betty Buckley, John Napier,and ALW - plus a record breaking run. I wonder how close Wicked (has anyone found a good review yet?), Avenue Q or, god forbid, Millie will come to this.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:51am

I'm not gonna say a word. (Ah, what the hell...) CATS has always been my favorite musical. But, I'm through with trying to convince people how beautiful it is. I love it, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't like it, fine, but leave me out of your criticizing conversations.

[DAME]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 5:23am

Well I saw the original 2 weeks after it opened. I think I was 16. I remember being transfixed by the whole thing. Then I bought the cast album and the only thing I would ever want to listen to was the first number. Years later I went to see it late in its run with Liz Callway as Grizabella. ... I hated it. I hated the music, I hated the kittys, I hated the dancing. I hated the set. I hated that show. All of a sudden I found myself hiding the album so that if someone would come over I wouldn't be embarrased. ( I mean if I am going to be labeled a show queen it isn't going to be over Cats). Now I don't mean to be a bashing Hussy..... and for those of you that have gotten enjoyment out of cats... more power to you.... But I just don't get it.

Updated On: 5/2/04 at 05:23 AM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 8:04am

I don't really get the problem with it, either. CATS served as a decent intro to theater for various kids in my life. So the story was silly...like THAT never happens anymore... and it had a very high schmaltz level (yes, I got misty when Grizabella ascended to the Heavyside Layer...so sue me). I think it's gotten a worse rap than it deserves by becoming the butt of a gazillion jokes. I guess that's gonna happen to any show that becomes the ultimate tourist musical and is embraced as the singular theater experience of many a non-theater-goer.

But even as I'm defending it, I have to say that the phrase "Cats...now and forever!" was just too pretentious for words and made me want to slap someone.

Updated On: 5/2/04 at 08:04 AM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 8:38am

I saw the original production of CATS mid-way through its run. Although the set was clever, the show had no narrative thread to keep me interested in it and I couldn't muster any enthusiasm for the cats onstage, although they all displayed a huge amount of collective talent.

What really irked me, though, was the second act when the Chinese cats materialized. The music was a complete rip-off of the wonderful melodies Giacomo Puccini wrote for TURANDOT (an opera with a Chinese setting). Specifically, he stole the underscoring for Turandot's advisors, Ping, Pang and Pong. I felt that when a composer blatantly steals from another source without credit, he his guilty of musical plagiarism and the Puccini estate felt likewise. I understand there was a substantial lawsuit against Lord Andy when he cribbed music from Puccini's LA FANCIULLA DEL WEST for PHANTOM OF THE OUTHOUSE.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is the king of rip-offs.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 9:48am

I do like the musical, but it is one of the stupidest ideas for a show I've ever heard. You have a bunch of cats running around deciding who the special one is, who will get to go to the "Heavyside Layer"....I mean, it has no story. It just has great dancing and singing. The show has grown on me, and all, and I love the music and the album, and the choreography is wonderful. But the story is worthless.

[BroadwayPer4mer03]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 9:48am

Cats is also one of my favorites. I see why you dislike it. But still you shouldn't add all those comments about Trevor Nunn, ALW, Betty Buckley,etc. Fyi ALW wrote some of the best musicals of our time, Trevor Nunn created the hit Les Miserables.
Also I have seen good reviews for Wicked.In fact it seems that Wicked is getting more positive attention now than ever before. It seems to do better than Avenue Q.

[mominator]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 9:57am

I too liked Cats. I got to see it way back when I was in High School(hey folks I graduated is '81) while the story is barely there I just loved the music, and well it was in the Winter Garden!

[BroadwayDiva]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 10:20am

I like CATS. I saw it when I was 5, but I hated it because, well, I was 5 and I fell asleep because I thought it was boring. Then, this year, I picked up the cast recording, and now I'm totally hooked on it. I even went out and bought the DVD!!

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 10:58am

Never liked 'Cats.' Yes, I saw the original production (not everyone on this board is 15.)

I completely understand why it took off, though. It was different. It was magical, it looked amazing and it bounced and danced and it was something people had never seen before. But was it good? Oh, god, no. It's not the lack of narrative that bothered me. It was the cheesy pastiche score, the 15 minute 'Jellicle Ball' and the endless parade of characters that were no more interesting than lyrics and costumes. It was a childrens' pageant, which is fine, but it wasn't even a particularly clever one. It was just a bunch of songs, a couple of which I liked, most of which were neither good nor bad, they were just ... there.

Sure, everyone involved was talented, onstage and off. If there was ever a case of the talent saving the material, one need look no further than 'Cats.' Or, to be more accurate, one need only see a less-than-stellar production of 'Cats' to realize just how bad it really is.

Yeah, it was an imaginitive spectacle and kept a lot of people employed for a long time. It was the right show at the right time with the right producer and the right composer (at that time.) More power to 'em.

I just wish the garbage the people were performing would have smelled as nice as the garbage they were playing in.

[Jamie Hat]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 11:01am

I used to listen to the Shimbleshanks song on repeat for hours when I was eight years old. HOURS...

Posted: 5/2/04 at 12:20pm

Sorry - I was praising Trevor Nunn, Buckley, etc. for their contributions. I may have come across as being sarcastic which wasn't intended.

[mominator]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 12:25pm

Forgiven

[StateOfJade]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 12:37pm

Hey, nothing against CATS. I just find it funny to see grown men and women jumping around stage in potato sacks.

[~*Triple Star On Broadway*~]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 2:29pm

Hardly potato sacks! The only bitterness I have with ALL ALW musicals, are that THEY AREN'T MUSICALS. They are pop-operas which is 100% fine, but I just hate that they do so well on broadway when other real musicals may not do as well. But whatever, to each his own!

Updated On: 5/2/04 at 02:29 PM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 2:41pm

Reasons I hate CATS:

1: The source by famous anti-Semite T.S. Elliot tries so hard to be very Englishy fey and nonsensical (like Lewis Carroll or Edward Lear) and comes off very leaden, coy and gag-inducingly cutesy instead.

2: Actors in mousey dull cat costumes* and makeup, making grade-school pageant 'cat' gestures.

3: Andrew Lloyd Weber.

4: "Memory" one of the first "modern dige" anthems of Broadway.


*the only acceptible cat costumes I know of are features in M-G-M's "ZIEGFELD FOLLIES of 1946" where chours girls are dressed in black sequined panther costumes. Lucille Ball (clad in pink ostrich plumes) comes into their cage and whips them into submission.

Watching CATS, I was so hoping Lucy would sashay onstage and bullwhip those pussies into a quivering, bloody mess.

[LouW95]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:17pm

Some theatre elitists can't deal with the fact that ALW and Disney sell more tickets and employ more people longer than those shows the theatre purists worship. Can anyone name a Sondheim show which had an initial run of almost 20 years? Updated On: 5/2/04 at 03:17 PM

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:37pm

well im the usual story; cats was my first braodway show, and were talkin' when i was five. i loved every second of it. when i got older it started to annoy me, and you wouldnt catch me dead with the cast recording in my cd player. BUT i did see it three times, twice on braodway and once in a touring production. both times on broadway were great, like johnpopa said, the talent kept the show alive. the touring production was awful, the set wasnt much, and the energy just wasnt there. it was then that i could absolutly tell that the show (in its singular version, just the material itself) just was not worth the praise it recieved- but because it employed some amazing performers for a lot of years, it was successful anyway.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:37pm

I saw the original production with the original cast a few months after it opened on Broadway and remember being completely underwhelmed by it (and I was a teenager at the time -- theoretically the target audience for the show). Good dancing, a decent song or two, but the revue-like structure of the book did nothing for me. It seemed like all pizazz and no soul, even to my 16 year old eyes -- all style, no substance. Mind you, though I was young, I had already seen a few dozen shows on Broadway (my parents started taking me regularly when I was 5), so perhaps my reaction wasn't typical of most kids in the audience. I had seen flash and eye-popping staging before, but usually it was in service of a show with a good story and a strong emotional core -- Fiddler, Evita, The Wiz, A Chorus Line, Candide, Sweeney Todd, Nine and, especially, Dreamgirls (which I had just seen the year before and was completely blown away by -- I'm STILL blown away by it) immediately come to mind.

By comparison to any of those shows (and many others I could name), Cats seemed trite, plastic and superficial. Yes, Betty Buckley was great (for the 15 minutes she was on stage) and the dancing was impressive, but ultimately I didn't find much in it to connect to -- I remember being rather bored by it and being anxious to get out of the theatre when it was over.

I have no interest in bashing the show. I know that many people love it -- and that's terrific -- but, it did absolutely nothing for me.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 3:46pm

margo, you saw the original productions of these shows? fiddler?! a chorus line?! wow! tell me more, tell me more!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/2/04 at 4:55pm

To me Cats was one song "Memory" & nothing more . No idea why it ran as it did & others shows that are far superior close quickly.

[DAME]

Posted: 5/4/04 at 12:41pm

But most of his shows are one song shows.

[Jimmcf]

Posted: 5/4/04 at 12:44pm

It was one of the first shows I saw (in Boston), and then on Broadway (where I saw Lillias White as Grizabella) and enjoyed it. I am probally the only person on the planet who is still not tired of "Memory" - although only Elaine Paige's verisons for me.

[DAME]

Posted: 5/4/04 at 12:45pm

You are a tasteless hussy.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 5/4/04 at 8:02pm

Cats was my very first Broadway show. I was 7 and had a front row seat that put in a weird corner between the runway and the actual stage. Having never seen a musical before, as well as being obsessed with an ALW Premier Collection CD since I was 4, it was the most thrilling experience of my life up till that time and I will never forget it.
That said, looking back on Cats now is kind of like going back to watch Nicktoon re-runs when you're a teenager. When you're little, you're absolutely enthralled, but when you go back and look at it, you kind of go "Wow, I was had really low standards." I'll always appreciate what Cats gave me: my first love of live theatre. I just think I've expanded my horizons and moved onto other options. Cats will "now and forever" be a happy "memory" I'll treasure. But it's no longer my absolute favorite show hands down.