Why do you all hate Cats?

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 11:43pm

Just curious, being an ALW fan, why everyone on BWW.com seems to hate Cats. Sure there isn't too much of a plot, but the music is excellent and the staging is a lot of fun. It just seems to me that a lot of people hate Cats and I would like people to tell me why.

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 11:55pm

A LOT of people on this site get anxious and start to get crabby when a show fills a theatre for too long...CATS being the longest running show is the focus...a lot of people don't like Beauty and the Beast and Phantom for the same reasons.....But I say, give WICKED or RENT long enough, and people will hate them too...

[neocomposer]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:01am

I dont know if I really hate any show...thats a strong word for a work of art. BUT Cats is certainly not my favorite. For the spectacle that it was and the joy it apparently brought and brings to people, I say it's fine. But as a show I found it to be lacking substance in so many ways, the plot or lack thereof didn't really appeal to me. And I don't enjoy the songs, though I did when I was young.

Thats why it's, as my dad always told me to say, "not my favorite."

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:06am

That it ran so damn long had nothing to do with my dislike of it. I hated it from the very beginning. I saw the show with the original cast and found it to be a shallow, superficial, trite and boring spectacle that I couldn't wait to leave -- and I was a kid at the time. Yes, the dancing was impressive, as were some of the design elements, but even then, as a teenager (who had seen several dozen Broadway shows since the age of 4 at that point) I felt is was all flash and style and no substance. It had all the meaning and depth of a theme park ride and the score was precious, derivative and corny. I didn't care about any of the characters or the "story," as it were. For me, it was all much ado about nothing.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:09am

My question to you than is this: Does every Broadway show have to have a deep examination of a certain subject, or can a show just be light fun?
And how can you say memory is "corny." The music is diverse and fitting to the characters it talks about.

[neocomposer]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:10am

I think you are right that shows CAN be that way (not necessarily deep or having great substance), but that doesn't mean I, personally, will enjoy them at all.


That all depends on what each person wants out of a musical.

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 12:10 AM

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:14am

So a show like Oklahoma shouldn't be enjoyed. How about any of the old musicals written before 1950 by people like Porter and Rodgers and Hart that are just written for people to have fun? I think the view that shows have to be deep to be worthwhile is very limiting. Do you people feel the same way about non-musical theater or movies? Is light comedic fun not allowed in the arts at all?

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:14am

I find the show to be just ridiculous -I totally agree with Margo on this one; the show is superficial and I just saw no reason for me to be watching any of it. While I don't necessarily believe that every show has to be some sort of "deep examination" of something, I still feel like a show has to have some purpose, some reason why this writer felt like this play had to be written right now, some need to say something, and Cats does not fill that for me. Instead, I thought it was a snooze with silly cat costumes.

[neocomposer]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:17am

For me? I just prefer more substance and plot. And I certainly enjoy shows such as Oklahoma, because I COULD have fun. There was a plot! And its a bit darker than you may be remembering...

At any rate, the plot is too minor in Cats to keep my attention. For others, that may not have been the case, and thats great for them.

Selah.

[neocomposer]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:17am

double post, sorry

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 12:17 AM

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:17am

In response to what some other people are saying, even shows like Porter, Kern, R&H, etc. have deep political and social themes, and aren't really just the stupid distractions that you make them out to be, as unsophisticated as they may seem. There are a lot of heart to some of those shows, that goes beyond what Cats does, in my opinion.

Comedy plays/movies/whatever can still be important.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:18am

I, on the other hand, was always wowed how a group of poems put together for the stage could have so much success (I really can understand why so many producers thought it was a crazy idea).

There was more of an order than a story, and I find that they found a really creative way to make it work.
Of course it was a huge spectacle, but it was very well designed, and I found it jaw dropping.

[wickedfreak]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:20am

I love that show!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:21am

Give Wicked or Rent long enough? Rent has been open for only 2 years less than Beauty and the Beast. I was complaining about Beauty and the Beast long before 2 years ago. God help me if that show passes A Chorus Line.

I think Cats is just weird on so many levels. I actually do like the overture to the show and still listen to it from time to time. But once the cats open their mouths, it's too much. It was just a stretch to take a book of poems- that wasn't supposed to have a plot- then shoehorning some sort of a plot in there after the fact to sell it as a musical.

I think it's the Winter Garden. It has a weird aura to keeps attracting tourist audiences to shows that are trainwrecks.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:22am

I'm sorry, truly I am. While I respect your--and everyone's right to their opinion--I can honestly say that "Memory" is the single most vapid, redundant and cheaply sentimental song I have ever heard from a Broadway show. I hated it from the first moment I heard it.

Fortunately, I was spared the agony of seeing the show because my parents went before I had the chance to; they utterly despised it. I believe they left at intermission and went to a bar to dullen the pain. After my mom's scathing review (and she had superb taste, I might add), I knew that staying away was my best line of defense. Sadly, I was not able to fully escape that song since it was played EVERYWHERE!

P.S. Did anyone see Mario Cantone's re-enactment of Cats in his one-man show? Brilliant!

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:22am

I like Cats...the show.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:23am

Isn't the character of Grizzabella and her theme of aging a "Social theme." There isn't a lot of heart to her?! I don't think its fair to say that Cats has no examinations of society. Bustopher Jones, The Gumbie Cat, Macavity, Grizzabella, the list goes on and on of characters that are "social themes."

And Pinguin, you seem to be saying that light comedic entertainment is fine everywhere but musical theater. What?

And neocomposer, I understand your preference of plot, even though I don't agree with it. I also agree Oklahoma was a bad example. Think more 42nd street for a good example of mindless entertainment.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:25am

There are plenty of shows that I would call "light entertainment" that I've loved over the years. But they all had characters I cared about, a score that didn't veer from bad vaudeville to nursery rhyme drivel to 3rd rate Puccini, and had some semblance of a story that I found interesting. Who was going to get to kitty heaven is not a story I cared about, even as a kid. I've even loved plotless revues such as "Ain't Misbehavin" and "Side By Side By Sondheim" where in the place of story, you had fun songs with clever lyrics (that told a story) and performers I was intrigued and entertained by. There was something on stage that I could identify with or care about.

I just couldn't summon any interest in Rumpleteezer or Skimbleshanks and any of the other oddly named creatures covered in yak hair. The whole experience was monotonous with solo after solo of annoying whimsical little tales I just could care less about and the music all sounded like stuff I'd heard before elsewhere. I liked some the dancing and the performers were quite good, but it wasn't enough to sustain my interest. I was bored and looking back it was one of the worst shows I can recall seeing duing my childhood and adolescence.

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 12:25 AM

[neocomposer]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:26am

I saw that! Mario Cantone started basically using the word jellicle before any noun imaginable and prancing and singing...sorry for the thread jack, but I loved him!!

As for the animal cats...they hate me.

[wickedfreak]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:26am

The story is very deep and if you take the time to analize it you will find many diferent layers of the story. Just give it a chance.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:27am

Some of you must also appreciate the set design though.
I thik, even through the years, sets and lights were very well done.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:27am

Uh...I don't think I said that anywhere...I'm saying that what you consider to be "light comedic entertainment" isn't really just that. You seem to think all the shows before 1950's were written just for fun, but that's not true.

Cats is just not compelling to me. And neither is 42nd street. There is a lot of musical theatre out there -even comedies, gasp- that are a lot more entertaining and a lot more interesting.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:29am

I agree with wickedfreak. If you look at the story you will see, as corny as this sounds, that the Cats presented are little different from us humans? There are stereotypical people who we can find running around our own world today.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:32am

You look at a lot of theater before the 50's and you see some serious works, but a lot more light comedic stuff. I believe I read that Hammerstein once told a young Sondheim that he didn't think there was any point in making a musical more serious. To him, it was all about giving the audience a good time, and that serious emotional engagment should take a backseat to just having a good time. If you look at many of the hits from back then, they fall in line with this philosophy. Oklahoma was a lot darker when it first came out then when Trevor Nunn revived it. I remember people being suprised by how dark it was during the London revival 8 years ago.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 12:38am

Margo, this thread is the perfect example of why you are one of my favorite posters on this site.

ALWrules, have you ever considered that maybe we just have different tastes in musical theater than you and our opinions are perfectly valid? Maybe you could explain what you find so appealing about Cats.

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 12:38 AM